Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: -11 Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Ahmed

12 Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals and on
13 behalf of others similarly situated,

COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

14

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

RELIEF

15 vs.
16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 17 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
Tom SHANNON, Acting Secretary of State; 18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 19 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 20 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 21 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 22 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting
Director of National Intelligence,
23
Defendants-Respondents.
24

25

26

27

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 0

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 20
1
INTRODUCTION
2
1. Plaintiffs are two United States citizens, one lawful permanent resident, and three
3
nationals of three predominantly Muslim countries who seek to be reunited and live as families
4
in the United States. Like thousands before them, Plaintiffs have diligently pursued the lengthy
5
and rigorous immigrant visa process, which entails, inter alia, filing immigrant visa petitions and
6
immigrant visa applications, paying hundreds of dollars in filing fees, undergoing security
7
screenings and medical examinations, and attending an interview before a consular officer.
8
9 2. The unlawful and discriminatory executive order issued by President Donald Trump on 10 January 27, 2017 has shattered Plaintiffs’ lives and their prospects for being reunited as well as 11 the lives and reunification prospects of the scores of similarly situated families and individuals
12 they seek to represent through this action. This far-reaching executive order contains an array of
13 problematic provisions with drastic consequences.
14 3. At issue in this suit is Section 3 of the executive order, through which President Trump
15 abruptly suspended immigrant visa processing for nationals of seven predominantly Muslim
16 countries, and prohibited their entry into the United States.
17 4. Section 3 violates Congress’ clear intent in 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1) to prevent
18 discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality,
19 place of birth, or place of residence.” It also violates Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected rights 20 to family, marriage, and equal protection under the law. 21 5. Plaintiffs and prospective class members seek this Court’s intervention to cease 22 application of Section 3 of the executive order to persons in the immigrant visa process—U.S.
23
citizens and lawful permanent residents who have successfully petitioned for the immigration of
24
a family member and nationals of the seven designated countries who have applied for visas—to
25
prevent ongoing and future harm to these individuals. Such intervention is needed to protect the
26
integrity of the United States’ immigrant visa process.
27
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 20

1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2
6. This case arises under the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality
3
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701
4
et seq.
5

7.
6

Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a civil action

arising under the laws of the United States, and the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, 28
7

U.S.C. § 1361. Declaratory judgment is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. The United
8

9 States has waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702.

10 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because

11 Defendants are officers or employees of the United States or agencies thereof acting in their

12 official capacities. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred

13 in this district, and Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali and Reema Dahman reside in this district, as do many

14 putative class members. In addition, no real property is involved in this action.

15

PARTIES

16 9. Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali is a U.S. citizen who resides in Seattle, Washington.

17 10. Plaintiff A.F.A. is her six-year-old son. He is a citizen and resident of Somalia.

18 11. Plaintiff A.F.A. has a pending immigrant visa application based on Plaintiff Ali’s
19 approved family-based immigrant visa petition for him.
20 12. Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman is Syrian citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the
21 United States who resides in Seattle, Washington.
22 13. Plaintiff G.E. is her 16-year-old son. He is a citizen and resident of Syria.
23
14. Plaintiff G.E. has a pending immigrant visa application based on Plaintiff Dahman’s
24
approved family-based immigrant visa petition for him.
25
15. Plaintiff Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali is a U.S. citizen who resides in Los Banos,
26
California.
27

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 4 of 20
1
16. Plaintiff E.A. is his 12-year-old daughter. She is a citizen of Yemen currently located in
2
Djibouti.
3
17. Plaintiff E.A. has an approved immigrant visa based on Plaintiff Ali’s approved family-
4
based immigrant visa petition for her.
5
18. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official
6
capacity.
7
19. Defendant U.S. Department of State (DOS) is a cabinet department of the United States
8
9 federal government. DOS has an integral role in the immigrant visa application and adjudication 10 process. 11 20. Defendant Tom Shannon is the Acting Secretary of State and as such is the chief foreign
12 affairs adviser to the President. His responsibilities include administering DOS and supervising
13 the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad. He is sued in his official capacity.
14 21. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the
15 United States federal government. DHS has an integral role in the immigrant visa application and
16 adjudication process.
17 22. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of DHS and is responsible for the administration
18 and enforcement of the INA and oversight of all operations of DHS. He is sued in his official
19 capacity. 20 23. Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a component 21 of DHS responsible for, inter alia, adjudicating immigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of 22 foreign nationals seeking to immigrate to the United States. USCIS play an integral role in the
23
immigrant visa application and adjudication process.
24
24. Defendant Lori Scialabba is the Acting Director of USCIS and is responsible for its
25
oversight and administration, including responsibility for USCIS’ role in the immigrant visa
26
application and adjudication process. She is sued in her official capacity.
27
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 5 of 20
1
25. Defendant Office of Director of National Intelligence is assigned responsibility under the
2
Executive Order to consult with DHS, to determine which countries will be encompassed by the
3
Executive Order.
4
26. Defendant Michael Dempsey is the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and is
5
responsible for its oversight and administration, including responsibility for DNI’s role in vetting
6
countries targeted by the Executive Order. He is sued in his official capacity.
7
BACKGROUND
8
9 27. The INA sets forth a rigorous multi-step application process for those seeking to obtain 10 an immigrant visa to the United States. See generally 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1154. 11 28. As an initial step, the government must receive and approve a visa petition. A qualifying
12 U.S. citizen family member or employer must submit a visa petition on behalf of a foreign
13 national beneficiary and pay an accompanying filing fee to USCIS, a subdivision of DHS, using
14 either Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative), or Form I-140 (Petition for Alien Worker). To
15 be eligible to submit a family-based visa petition, the petitioner’s relationship to the beneficiary
16 must fall within a prescribed statutory classification. In order to qualify for an employment-based
17 visa, the beneficiary must meet a variety of requirements, generally including qualification for
18 the job that she seeks and a lack of U.S. workers available to take that job.
19 29. Certain other limited categories of noncitizens are eligible to immigrate pursuant to
20 legislation, including Iraq translators who have supported U.S. troops abroad or worked on 21 behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq. These individuals apply for an immigrant visa by filing 22 Form I-360 (Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant) with USCIS.
23
30. If USCIS approves the visa petition, the beneficiary of the petition is eligible to begin the
24
process to apply to immigrate as soon as a visa number becomes available. If a visa number is
25
immediately available, she may begin the process of applying for the immigrant visa
26
immediately; if there is a backlog in the visa category in which she falls, she may wait months or
27
years for a visa number to become immediately available. The length of the wait depends on
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 6 of 20
1
factors such as the type of petition, the country of nationality, and/or the family or employment
2
category for which a visa number is sought.
3
31. After USCIS approves an immigrant visa petition, the immigrant visa beneficiary (i.e.,
4
the immigrant visa applicant) faces additional fees, additional applications, and screening by the
5
National Visa Center (NVC), a component of DOS. Once the additional fees are paid, the
6
immigration visa applicant must submit Form DS-260 (Immigrant Visa Electronic Application),
7
and, in many cases, Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support). DOS and DHS then conduct a variety of
8
9 security checks regarding the applicants’ background and any possible criminal history. 10 32. Immigrant visa applicants also must undergo a medical examination by an Embassy11 approved physician.
12 33. After all necessary paperwork and agency screening of the beneficiary is completed, the
13 U.S. Embassy or consulate will issue an interview notice, requiring her to appear at a U.S.
14 Embassy or consulate. At the appointment, a consular officer interviews the immigrant visa
15 applicant and reviews the wide range of supporting documents, including documentation of her
16 medical exam, identity documents and documents establishing her visa eligibility, a police
17 certificate, and any military or prison records.
18 34. In order for a consular officer to grant an immigrant visa application, the officer must
19 establish that the applicant is eligible for a visa and is not barred by various grounds of 20 inadmissibility set forth in the INA, including national security-related grounds. See, e.g., 8 21 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3). Among the tools available to consular officers in making these 22 determinations are Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs), a process through which a noncitizen’s
23
information is referred to a variety of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies for
24
assessment. Both consular officers and DHS employees stationed at U.S. Embassies and
25
Consulates pursuant to Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 may request that an
26
SAO be submitted. A consular visa is not issued until the SAO process is completed.
27
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 7 of 20

1
35. If the consular officer approves the immigrant visa application, the person is presented
2
with an immigrant visa packet which they must carry and present upon arrival in the United
3
States. At the time the individual receives the packet, she becomes an immigrant visa holder and
4
must enter the United States within 6 months of the date her visa is issued.
5
36. The individual presents the visa packet to a Customs and Border Protection inspecting
6
officer at a port of entry. Upon admission to the United States, the immigrant visa holder
7
becomes a lawful permanent resident (LPR).
8
9 37. Other noncitizens may qualify for an immigrant visa through such programs as the
10 diversity visa program, and special immigrant visa programs. These individuals follow a similar
11 application, screening, adjudication and admission process.

12

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13

President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order

14 38. On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of the

15 United States.

16 39. One week later, on January 27, President Trump signed an executive order entitled,

17 “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” (EO). The order is

18 attached as Exhibit A.
19 40. Claiming a need to “protect Americans” from the threat of terrorism and blaming DOS
20 policy for the September 11, 2001 tragedies (Sections 1 and 2), the EO orders the immediate
21 implementation of major changes to the ability of foreign nationals to seek and obtain admission
22 to the United States. The EO impacts all major categories of foreign nationals who seek
23
admission to the United States: immigrants, nonimmigrants, and refugees. Among other things,
24
the EO directs federal agencies to develop screening standards for all immigration benefits to
25
identify individuals who enter fraudulently intending to cause harm (Section 4); suspends
26
refugee processing for 120 days, halts the processing and admission of Syrian refugees
27
indefinitely, and reduces the number of refugee admissions from 110,000 to 50,000 in fiscal year
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 8 of 20
1
2017 (Section 5); orders the heads of executive departments to consider rescinding their exercise
2
of discretionary authority to waive inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3) (Section 6);
3
directs agencies to expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit system
4
which includes reporting requirements (Section 7); and suspends the State Department’s
5
authority to waive visa interviews unless a person is subject to a specific statutory exemption
6
(Section 8).
7
41. Section 3, entitled “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to
8
9 Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern” is at issue in this lawsuit. Sections 3(a) and (b) 10 order DHS, in consultation with DOS and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), to review 11 and submit a report to the President on “the information needed from any country to adjudicate
12 any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications)” to verify an applicant’s
13 identity and assess his or her threat to security or public-safety.
14 42. In Section 3(c), the President, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), bans all persons from
15 countries referred to in 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) from entering the United States on an immigrant
16 or nonimmigrant visa for 90 days, with limited exceptions not relevant here. These countries are
17 Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
18 43. Sections 3(d)-(f) set forth a timetable for identifying countries that do not supply the
19 information on foreign nationals included in the DHS report to the President and requesting their
20 compliance. For those that fail to comply, the President may impose a ban on the entry of 21 nationals of that country until such time as the country complies. At any time, DOS or DHS may 22 suggest that the President impose similar treatment on additional countries.
23
Resulting Chaos
24
44. Immediately following issuance of the EO, hundreds of persons involved in the
25
immigrant visa process were harmed. Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, A.F.A., Dahman, and G.E., along
26
with many others, had already begun the visa application process; they faced the immediate
27
suspension of immigrant visa processing. Plaintiff E.A. and many others had been issued a visa
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 9 of 20

1
and were en route or making plans to travel to the United States; they were now banned from

2
entering the United States notwithstanding their valid visas.

3
45.
4

The DOS and some U.S. embassies and consulates abroad posted the following notice

online, advising immigrant visa applicants that visa issuance had been suspended and visa
5

interviews cancelled.
6

7

Urgent Notice: Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks

by Foreign Nationals

8

JANUARY 27, 2017
9

10

Urgent Notice

11

Per the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by

Foreign Nationals signed on January 27, 2017, visa issuance to nationals of the

12

countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been

13

suspended effective immediately until further notification. If you are a citizen of

one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa

14

fees at this time. If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT

ATTEND. You will not be permitted entry to the Embassy/Consulate. We will

15

announce any other changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that

16

information is available.

17 See https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/news.html; see also https://sudan.usembassy.gov/,

18 https://iraq.usembassy.gov/pr_012817.html.

19 46. In addition, some U.S. embassies and consulates have sent similar notifications to

20 applicants. For example, upon information and belief, the U.S. Embassy Baghdad sent

21 the following notice to an immigrant visa applicant again advising both that visa

22 processing has been suspended and that all previously-issued visas have been revoked; it

23 reads: Dear applicant,
24

25

Urgent Notice: Per U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27,

2017, visa issuance to aliens from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia,

26

Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective immediately until further

27

notification. If you are a national, or dual national, of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time. If you

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 10 of 20

1

already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your

appointment as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview. Please

2

note that certain travel for official governmental purposes, related to official

3

business at or on behalf of designated international organizations, on behalf of

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to

4

this suspension. Please continue to monitor the Embassy Baghdad

website https://iraq.usembassy.gov/ and www.travel.state.gov for further update.
5

6

Please be advised that all previously-issued visas to the United States for Iraqi

nationals currently outside the United States have been revoked. You are

7

therefore advised not to purchase tickets or to attempt to travel to the United

States until further notice.
8

9 10
47.

Regards, U.S. Embassy Baghdad
An untold number of individuals who had already received visas have been left unable to

11
travel. Many, like Plaintiffs Ahmed Ali and his daughter E.A., had booked travel to the United
12
States and were stopped in transit, and others had already arrived and were refused entry into the
13
country and forced to return.
14

Animus Directing President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order
15

48. Through repeated statements, President Trump has made clear his intent to target the
16

admission of foreign nationals based upon their Muslim religion. For example, as a candidate,
17

18 President Trump championed an explicit Muslim ban, “calling for a total and complete shutdown

19 of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is

20 going on.” Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration

21 (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-

22 preventing-muslim-immigration.

23 49. Rudolph Giuliani, President Trumps’ advisor on cybersecurity, confirmed that the current

24 executive order was intended to be a “legal” ban on Muslims. See Amy B. Wang, Trump asked

25 for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’, Wash. Post

26 (Jan. 29, 2017) (“So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up.

27 He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'").

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 11 of 20

1
50. The EO exempts only Christian refugees from the ban imposed on the seven Muslim-

2
majority countries. See Ex. A, E.O., at Section 5(b); Michael D. Shear & Helene Cooper, Trump

3
Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2017) (“[President
4

Trump] ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over
5

Muslims.”).
6

PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS

7
Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and her son A.F.A.
8
51. Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali is a 23-year-old U.S. citizen who resides in Seattle,
9
Washington.
10
52. Ms. Ali was born in Somalia and came to the United States as a child.
11
53. She derived U.S. citizenship on August 31, 2010 when her mother became a U.S.
12
citizen.
13
54. On August 12, 2016, Ms. Ali filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-130)
14
15 for her son, Plaintiff A.F.A., with USCIS, along with the then requisite $420.00 filing fee.

16 55. A.F.A. is a 6-year-old citizen and resident of Somalia, where he lives with his

17 grandmother.

18 56. On December 21, 2016, USCIS approved the immigrant visa petition Ms. Ali filed on

19 behalf of A.F.A. and his case was subsequently transferred to the National Visa Center (“NVC”)

20 for the processing of an immigrant visa as a child of a U.S. citizen (IR-2).

21 57. On January 17, 2017, the NVC processed Ms. Ali’s payment of the requisite $325 for the

22 Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee, along with the requisite $120 for the Affidavit of

23 Support Fee.

24 58. On January 20, 2017, Ms. Ali electronically submitted A.F.A.’s immigrant visa 25 application (Form DS-260). Also on that date, she mailed all supporting documents and Request 26 for Exemption for Intending Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support (Form I-864W) to the NVC.
27

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 12 of 20

1
59. The United States does not have an embassy or mission that processes immigrant visas in
2
Somalia. The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya can process and issue immigrant visas for
3
Somalian nationals.
4
60. Ms. Ali and A.F.A. are currently waiting for the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi to schedule an
5
immigrant visa interview.
6
61. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO, Defendants have suspended the processing of
7
A.F.A.’s immigrant visa interview for 90 days from the date of the order—i.e., April 27, 2017.
8
9 62. Pursuant to Sections 3(e) and 3(f) of the EO, there is a real possibility that the United
10 States will not permit A.F.A. to enter the United States to join his mother, Ms. Ali.

11
12 63.

Plaintiffs Reema Khaled Dahman and her son G.E. Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman is a 41-year-old U.S. lawful permanent resident (“LPR”)

13 who lives in Seattle, Washington.

14 64. She is a Syrian citizen who became an LPR on September 18, 2012.
15 65. On October 19, 2015, Ms. Dahman filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-
16 130) on behalf of her son, Plaintiff G.E., with USCIS, along with the then requisite $420.00
17 filing fee.
18 66. G.E. is a 16-year-old citizen and resident of Syria, where he lives with his grandmother.
19 67. G.E. and his mother have not seen each other since 2012.
20
68. On June 1, 2016, USCIS approved the I-130 petition Ms. Dahman filed on behalf of G.E.
21
69. USCIS subsequently transferred his case to the NVC for the processing of an immigrant
22
visa as a minor son of an LPR (F2).
23
70. On September 22, 2016, the NVC processed Ms. Dahaman’s payment of the requisite
24
$325 for the Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee, along with the requisite $120 for the
25
Affidavit of Support Fee.
26

27

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 13 of 20
1
71. On December 2, 2016, Ms. Dahman electronically submitted G.E.’s immigrant visa
2
application (Form DS-260). Also on that date, Ms. Dahman e-mailed the NVC all civil
3
documents and her Affidavit of Support (Form I-864).
4
72. The United States does not have an embassy or mission that processes immigrant visas in
5
Syria. The U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan processes and issues immigrant visas for Syrian
6
nationals.
7
73. Ms. Dahman and G.E. are currently waiting for the U.S. Embassy in Amman to schedule
8
9 an immigrant visa interview. 10 74. The website of the U.S. Embassy in Amman has suspended the processing of immigrant
11 visas of Syrian nationals pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EOR, see
12 https://jo.usembassy.gov/special-information-for-syrian-applicants/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2017).
13 75. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO, Defendants have suspended the processing of G.E.’s
14 immigrant visa interview for 90 days from the date of the order—i.e., April 27, 2017.
15 76. Pursuant to Sections 3(e) and 3(f) of the EO, there is a real possibility that the United
16 States will not permit G.E. to enter the United States to join his mother, Ms. Dahman.
17
Plaintiff Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali and his daughter E.A. 18 77. Plaintiff Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali is a 38-year-old U.S. citizen (“USC”) who 19 resides in Los Banos, California.
20
78. Mr. Ali was born in Yemen and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on July 19, 2010.
21
79. On April 11, 2011, Mr. Ali filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-130) for
22
his daughter, Plaintiff E.A., with USCIS, along with the then requisite $420 filing fee.
23
80. Plaintiff E.A. is a 12-year-old citizen and resident of Yemen, where she had been living
24
with her grandparents.
25
81. On June 10, 2013, USCIS approved the immediate relative I-130 petition for E.A.
26
27
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 14 of 20
1
82. On July 15, 2013, the NVC processed Mr. Ali’s payment of the then requisite $230 for
2
the Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee, along with the then requisite $88 for the
3
Affidavit of Support Fee.
4
83. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Ali electronically submitted E.A.’s Immigrant Visa Electronic
5
Application (Form DS-260). The next day, he e-mailed all civil documents and his Affidavit of
6
Support (Form I-864) to the NVC.
7
84. The NVC then forwarded the case to the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, Djibouti for further
8
9 processing and to schedule an interview. 10 85. On January 22, 2017, she appeared with her father, Mr. Ali, at the U.S. Embassy in 11 Djibouti for her interview. E.A. traveled for about 20 hours from Yemen to Djibouti. E.A. and
12 Mr. Ali were notified that the immigrant visa was approved.
13 86. E.A.’s immigrant visa was issued on January 25, 2017, and Mr. Ali and E.A. were able to
14 pick up the physical passport with the immigrant visa on January 26, 2017.
15 87. Mr. Ali and E.A.’s airline ticket cost a total of $2,032.96.
16 88. On January 26, 2017, E.A. paid an additional $220 immigrant visa processing fee that
17 USCIS required after she received her visa. See https://www.uscis.gov/file-online/uscis-
18 immigrant-fee (last visited Jan. 30, 2017)
19 89. On January 28, 2017, Mr. Ali and E.A. sought to board a flight from Djibouti to the
20 United States on Ethiopian Airlines. While at the airport, Mr. Ali was told by airline officials that 21 his daughter was not permitted to board the flight, pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO. 22 90. Mr. Ali and E.A. are currently in Djibouti.
23
91. Pursuant to Sections 3(e) and 3(f) of the EO, there is a real possibility that the United
24
States will not permit E.A. to enter the United States, along with her U.S. citizen father, to join
25
her U.S. citizen mother and her two U.S. citizen sisters.
26
92. The website of the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti has suspended the processing of immigrant
27
visas of Yemeni nationals pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO, see
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 15 of 20

1
https://dj.usembassy.gov/urgent-notice-per-u-s-presidential-executive-order-signed-january-27-
2
2017/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2017).
3

4

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

5 93. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly

6 situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). A class action is proper

7 because this action involves questions of law and fact common to the class, the class is so
8 numerous that joinder of all members is impractical, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of
9
the class, Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and Defendants
10
have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
11
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
12
94. In addition to Plaintiffs A.F.A., G.E., and E.A., there are numerous other immigrant visa
13
applicants or immigrant visa holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.
14
Each of these similarly situated individuals has had their immigrant visa application suspended
15
or invalidated due to the EO.
16
95. In addition to Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, and Ahmed Ali, there are
17
numerous others who have petitioned for family members from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya,
18
19 Somalia, and Yemen. Each of these similarly situated individuals is seeking to be reunited with
20 the immigrant visa applicants who has had their immigrant visa application suspended or

21 invalidated due to the EO.

22 96. Each of these similarly situated individuals is entitled to bring a complaint for declaratory

23 and injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice of suspending

24 immigrant visa processing and temporarily invalidating the immigrant visas.

25 97. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all nationals of countries designated by

26 Section 3(c) of the Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 (currently

27 Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), who have applied for or will apply for an

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 14

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 16 of 20
1
immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those nationals, whose visa applications have been or
2
will be suspended or denied, or whose immigrant visas have been or will be revoked, or who
3
have been or will be denied the ability to travel to the United States, on the basis of the January
4
27, 2017 Executive Order.
5
98. Plaintiffs seek to represent the class and are adequate class representatives. All Plaintiffs
6
have been subject to harm caused by Section 3 of the EO in that the EO either has suspended the
7
immigrant visa application process or revoked or invalidated the immigrant visa previously
8
9 received. 10 99. The Proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The 11 number of individuals who are subject to/affected by Section 3 of the EO is not known with
12 precision by Plaintiffs, but is easily ascertainable by Defendants, as will be addressed in
13 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
14 100. Common questions of law and fact bind the members of the Proposed Class. These
15 include, but are not limited to: whether the EO violates the INA, the APA, and the U.S.
16 Constitution.
17 101. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Proposed Class as a
18 whole. Defendants have subjected and will subject class members to Section 3 of the EO absent
19 relief by this Court.
20 102. Plaintiffs know of no conflict between their interests and those of the Proposed Class. 21 The members of the Proposed Class are ascertainable and identifiable through notice and 22 discovery. In defending their own rights, the individual Plaintiffs will defend the rights of all
23
class members fairly and adequately.
24
103. Plaintiffs are represented in this case by counsel with deep knowledge of immigration
25
law and extensive experience litigating class actions and complex cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys
26
have the requisite level of expertise to adequately prosecute this case on their behalf and on
27
behalf of the Proposed Class.
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 15

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 17 of 20

1
104. Defendants have act on grounds generally applicable to each member of the Proposed
2
Class by subjecting Plaintiffs and class members to Section 3 of the EO.
3
105. A class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication
4
of this controversy because joinder of all members of the class is impracticable.
5

6

CAUSES OF ACTION

7
COUNT ONE 8 Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act

9
106. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the
10
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
11
107. Section 202(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1), expressly
12
provides for the non-discriminatory issuance of immigrant visas; it mandates that, with limited
13
exceptions not relevant here, “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be
14
discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex,
15
nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”
16
17 108. Section 1152(a)(1) was intended to protect the interests of both U.S. citizen and lawful
18 permanent resident immigrant visa petitioners as well as immigrant visa applicants or holders.
19 109. The EO discriminates against immigrant visa applicants or holders on the basis of their
20 “nationality, place of birth, or place or residence,” and therefore is discriminatory and violates
21 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1).
22 110. Defendants’ actions in suspending the processing of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas, and/or

23 invalidating or revoking already issued immigrant visas is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

24 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power,

25 privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of

26 statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the
27 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 16

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 18 of 20

1

COUNT TWO

Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
2

3 111. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

4 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

5 112. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1) prohibits the government from denying issuance of immigrant

6 visas “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

7
113. Pursuant to the EO, Defendants have suspended issuance of and/or invalidated or revoked

8
Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas on the basis of their “nationality, place of birth, or place or
9
residence.”
10
114. Defendants unlawful adherence to the EO—and continuing refusal to process and issue
11
immigrant visas or treat as valid existing immigrant visas—violates the government’s clear,
12
nondiscretionary obligation to adjudicate immigrant visa applications and issue immigrant visas
13
in a non-discriminatory manner.
14

15

COUNT THREE

Violation of Fifth Amendment –Equal Protection

16

17 115. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the

18 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

19 116. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all

20 individuals due process of the laws, which includes a guarantee of equal protection.

21 117. Section 3 of the EO discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of their nationality and/or

22 place of birth without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection 23 component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 24 118. Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a disparate 25 effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process 26 Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
27

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 19 of 20

1

COUNT FOUR

Violation of the Fifth Amendment – Due Process

2

(Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, and Ahmed Ali Against All Defendants)

3
4 119. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

5 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein

6 120. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

7 provides that “[n]o person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

8 of law.”

9 121. Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, and Ahmed Ali have a constitutionally protected

10 liberty interest in their family life.

11 122. At a minimum, due process protects individuals against arbitrary government action,

12 including actions that do not adhere to the constraints that Congress has imposed or the facts may

13 dictate.

14 123. Defendants’ actions in suspending the processing of their immigrant visas and in denying

15 the validity of existing immigrant visas, taken pursuant to the EO, violate the procedural due

16 process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class respectfully pray that

19
this Court grant the following relief:
20
a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
21
b. Certify the case as class action as proposed herein;
22
c. Appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the classes;
23
d. Declare Section 3(c) of the Executive Order is contrary to the statute and the
24
Constitution;
25

e. Issue an order enjoining Defendants from applying Section 3(c) of the Executive Order
26

27 to Plaintiffs and proposed class members;

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 18

Case 2:17-cv-00135 Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 20 of 20

1
f. Award Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice
2
Act, and any other applicable statute or regulation; and
3
g. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
4

5
Respectfully submitted this 30th of January, 2017, by:
6

7
8 s/Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
9
s/Glenda Aldana 10 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA 46987
11
Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826, 12 application for admission forthcoming
13 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 14 615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA
98104 (206) 957-8611 15 (206) 587-4025 (fax)
16
17
Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice admission 18 forthcoming

Mary Kenney, pro hac vice admission forthcoming
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac vice admission forthcoming
Melissa Crow, pro hac vice admission forthcoming
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 507-7512 (202) 742-5619 (fax)

19 Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice admission 20 forthcoming
21 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
22 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 23 Boston, MA 02108
(617) 227-9727 24 (617) 227-5495 (fax)

25

26

27

28 COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 19

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 25

Honorable James L. Robart
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

11 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor;
12 Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a 13 minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals
and on behalf of others similarly situated,
14

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

15

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

17
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 18 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; 19 Tom SHANNON, Acting Secretary of State;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 20 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 21 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori 22 SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS;
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF 23 NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; Michael
DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National 24 Intelligence,
25

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: February 24, 2017
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

26

Defendants.

27

28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 0 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 25

I. INTRODUCTION
1
Plaintiffs and prospective class members are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
2
3 (LPRs) who have petitioned for immigrant visas for family members and employees, and
4 nationals of seven predominantly Muslim countries who are the beneficiaries of those petitions.

5 They seek to be reunited in the United States, but are currently barred from doing so by President
6
Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO). See Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 20,
7
8977-8982 (Feb. 1, 2017). Section 3(c) of the EO prohibits entry of individuals from Iran, Iraq,
8
9 Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with valid visas into the United States, and has been

10 applied to suspend the immigrant visa processing for nationals of those countries for 90 days,

11 with limited exceptions not relevant here. See id. at 8978; see also Dkt. 1 ¶¶45-46. Defendants’
12
unlawful adherence to the EO, as evidenced by their continuing refusal to process and issue
13
immigrant visas to Plaintiffs and proposed class members (hereafter, “Plaintiffs”) or to honor
14
15 existing immigrant visas issued to such individuals, and their decision to revoke properly issued

16 visas en masse, violates their non-discrimination obligations under the Immigration and

17 Nationality Act (INA). Defendants’ policies and practices also violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the
18
equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as their
19
rights to family life and due process of law.
20

21

Plaintiffs have followed the rigorous immigrant visa process—in some cases, over the

22 course of years. Many, including the named Plaintiffs, did so with the goal of reuniting with
23
family members in the United States. However, the EO now bans those who are beneficiaries of
24
immigrant visa petitions from entering the country and prevents further processing of visa
25
26 applications, thereby blocking proposed class members from making otherwise lawful entries

27 into the United States and depriving proposed class members, like the named Plaintiffs, who

28 lawfully filed family-based petitions and applications of the right to live together as families.

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 1 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 25

They suffer ongoing daily harm as they are separated from families and/or employment, and are
1
2 unaware when, if ever, they will be permitted to enter the country.

3

Despite having a clear duty not to discriminate based on “nationality, place of birth, or

4 place of residence” in issuing immigrant visas, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1), Defendants have created
5
and followed nationality-based guidance that targets nationals of seven predominantly Muslim
6
countries. In order to prevent ongoing and future harm to Plaintiffs, Defendants must
7
8 immediately cease application of Section 3 of the EO, and resume processing, issuing and

9 honoring immigrant visas in a manner that does not discriminate.
10
The questions presented in this case—whether Defendants have violated their statutory
11
duty not to discriminate in the processing, issuance and honoring of immigrant visas, and
12
13 whether such denial violates Plaintiffs’ due process rights—can and should be resolved on a

14 class-wide basis. The proposed class, moreover, satisfies the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a)

15 and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs request that the Court

16
certify the following class, with all the named Plaintiffs as class representatives:

17

All nationals of countries designated by Section 3(c) of Executive Order # 13769

18

(currently Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), who have

19

applied for or will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those

nationals, whose visa applications have been or will be suspended or denied,

20

whose immigrant visas have been or will be revoked, or who have been or will be

denied the ability to travel to the United States, on the basis of Executive Order

21

# 13769.

22
As discussed above, Plaintiffs present common legal claims.
23

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of this class, requiring the Court
24

25 to declare that Section 3(c) of the EO is contrary to the INA and the Constitution, halt its

26 application, and order Defendants to resume processing, issuing and honoring Plaintiffs’
27
immigrant visas.
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 2 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 25

II. BACKGROUND
1
A. Plaintiffs’ Legal Claims
2

3

Although the Court need not engage in “an in-depth examination of the underlying

4 merits” at this stage, it may analyze the merits to the extent necessary to determine the propriety

5 of class certification. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011); see

6
also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551-52 (2011). For that reason, Plaintiffs
7
provide a brief summary of their merits claims here. See also Dkt. 1.
8

9

The named Plaintiffs are two U.S. citizens, one LPR, and three nationals of

10 predominantly Muslim countries who seek to be reunited and live as families in the United

11 States. Like thousands before them, they have diligently pursued the lengthy and demanding
12
immigrant visa process, which entails, inter alia, filing immigrant visa petitions and immigrant
13
visa applications, paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in filing and related fees,
14
15 undergoing security screenings and medical examinations, and attending an interview before a

16 consular officer. However, the unlawful and discriminatory executive order issued by President
17
Trump on January 27, 2017, has shattered their lives and their prospects for being reunited in the
18
United States, and well as the lives and reunification prospects of the scores of similarly situated
19
20 families and individuals they seek to represent through this action.

21

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 enshrined the principle of

22 nondiscrimination into the immigration laws, providing that “no person shall receive any
23
preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of
24
the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C.
25
26 § 1152(a)(1)(A). This bedrock of nondiscrimination was enacted to root out the discriminatory

27 national origin quota system—in place between 1924 and 1965—that restricted immigration on

28 the basis of national origin. See Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d 376, 377 (2d Cir. 2011) (summarizing

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 3 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 25

the history of the national origin quota system). Under that system, immigration from countries
1
2 outside Northern and Western Europe was highly restricted, and immigration from Asia and

3 Africa was essentially nonexistent.

4

By the civil rights era, this system was openly under attack by members of Congress as

5
deeply flawed and racist. See, e.g., Immigration and Nationality Act: Hearing on H.R. 7919
6

before Subcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong. 208 (1964) (testimony of
7

8 Rep. Harold Ryan) (“It is unfair—it is unjust—it is pure discrimination for us to stamp a ‘second

9 best’ rating on any individual because of his birthplace.”); id. (testimony of Rep. William
10
Barrett) (“It is perhaps unnecessary for me to reiterate the well-known fact that the national
11
origins quota system . . . is based upon an infamous lie.”). Thus, “[i]n 1965, concerned about
12
13 discrimination on the basis of ‘race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,’

14 Congress repealed the national origins quota system.” Li, 654 F.3d at 377; see also S. REP. 89-

15 748, 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328, 3329 (1965) (noting that the “primary objective” of the 1965 Act
16
was “the abolishment of the national origins quota system”). In his signing statement, President
17
Lyndon B. Johnson wrote that the 1965 Act “abolished” the national origin system, which
18
19 “violated the basic principle of American democracy—the principle that values and rewards each

20 man on the basis of his merit as a man.” L.B.J. on Immigration, Remarks (Oct. 3, 1965),

21 available at http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration.
22
Section 3(c) of the EO directly violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) by requiring
23
discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality,
24
25 place of birth, or place of residence.” The only circuit court to have analyzed § 1152(a)(1)(A)

26 found that the statute was unambiguous and that national origin discrimination is impermissible.
27
Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 4 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 25

45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Legal Assistance for Vietnamese
1
2 Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 104 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

3 Faced with a State Department policy that required Vietnamese nationals to return to Vietnam

4 for visa processing, the court unequivocally rejected the government’s attempts to evade the

5
nondiscrimination guarantee in the statute:
6

Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw
7
a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees

8

urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for

making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. . . . We agree with

9

appellants’ interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more

10

explicit language. . . . We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own

terms provides no exceptions or qualifications. . . . Congress has unambiguously

11

directed that no nationality-based discrimination shall occur.

12 Id. at 473; see also Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. 442, 453 (S.D. Fla. 1980)
13
(“8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) manifested Congressional recognition that the maturing attitudes of
14
our nation made discrimination on [the listed] bases improper. In the face of such a decision by
15
16 Congress, INS [the former Immigration and Naturalization Service] has no authority to

17 discriminate on the basis of national origin or race . . . .”). Therefore, Section 3 of the EO is

18 unlawful on its face, as Congress barred national-origin discrimination in the issuance of
19
immigrant visas. See 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
20
Defendants’ discriminatory actions also violate Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under
21
22 the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that

23 noncitizens, including those not admitted to the United States, “com[e] within the ambit of the
24 equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.” Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373
25
F.3d 952, 974 (9th Cir. 2004). “[C]lassifications based on alienage, like those based on
26
27 nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny.” Graham v.

28 Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371, (1971); see Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 640 (1948)

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 5 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 25

(holding that the government must demonstrate “compelling justification” to defeat an equal
1
2 protection challenge to a decision “based solely on . . . country of origin”); Ball v. Massanari,

3 254 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 2001) (national origin discrimination must be reviewed under strict

4 scrutiny).
5
Therefore, this Court should apply strict scrutiny to Section 3(c) of the EO, which
6
discriminates on the basis of both national origin and religion. Plaintiffs need not show that
7
8 animus against a protected class “was the sole purpose of the challenged action, but only that it

9 was a ‘motivating factor.’” Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Vill. of
10
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265–66 (1977)). Although the EO
11
does not explicitly mention Muslims, President Trump’s animus towards Muslims is well-
12
13 documented. See, e.g., Theodor Schleifer, Donald Trump: “I think Islam hates us,” CNN (Mar.

14 10, 2016); Dkt. 1 ¶48 (noting then-candidate Trump’s call for a “total and complete shutdown of

15 Muslims entering the United States”); Vaugh Hillyard, Trump’s plan for a Muslim database
16
draws comparison to Nazi Germany, MSNBC (Nov. 20, 2015) (“I would certainly implement [a
17
Muslim registry]. Absolutely.”). Moreover, advisors to the President have confirmed the EO
18
19 was intended to ban on Muslims. Dkt. 1 ¶49 (noting the statement of Rudolph Giuliani that

20 President-Elect Trump asked him to write a “legal” ban on Muslims). Cf. EO § 5(b), 82 Fed.

21 Reg. 20 at 8979 (directing that executive agencies administering the U.S. Refugee Admissions
22
Program “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based
23
persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s
24
25 country of nationality”); id. § 5(e) (expressly noting that such claims are “in the national

26 interest” and should be considered when making exceptions to the refugee ban); Dkt. 1 ¶50. No
27
compelling government interest is served by such discriminatory motives.
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 6 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 25

Even if this Court finds that strict scrutiny does not apply, this Court must review the
1
2 decision under rational basis review. See, e.g. Ram v. I.N.S., 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001)

3 (evaluating whether “‘[l]ine-drawing’ decisions made by . . . the President in the context of

4 immigration and naturalization . . . are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose”).
5
“[S]uch review is more searching when a classification adversely affects unpopular groups,”
6
such as, in this case, Muslims and individuals from the seven affected countries. See Diaz v.
7
8 Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2011). The EO is not rationally related to a legitimate

9 purpose. To the extent it purports to relate to national security concerns, it is fatally over
10
inclusive. Between 1975 and 2015, there were no terrorism-related deaths in the United States
11
caused by individuals from the seven affected countries. Alex Nowsrasteh, Guide to Trump’s
12
13 Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons, CATO INSTITUTE (Jan. 26,

14 2017), available at https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-

15 national-security-reasons. The EO’s blanket ban on immigration in the name of “those who
16
engage in acts of bigotry or hatred” or “do not intend to harm Americans and . . . have no ties to
17
terrorism,” EO § 1, 82 Fed. Reg. 20 at 8977, is so overinclusive as to be incoherent, and does not
18
19 bear any rational relationship to its stated goals.

20

In addition, Defendants’ unlawful actions violate the constitutionally protected liberty

21 interest in family life for those U.S. citizen and LPR Plaintiffs who filed immigrant visa petitions
22
on behalf of their close family members. “[T]he foremost policy underlying the granting of
23
[immigrant] visas under our immigration laws [is] the reunification of families.” Lau v. Kiley,
24
25 563 F.2d 543, 547 (2d Cir. 1977); see Kaliski v. Dist. Dir. of Immigration & Naturalization

26 Serv., 620 F.2d 214, 217 (9th Cir. 1980) (the “humane purpose” of the INA is to “reunite
27
families”). The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse has the right to
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 7 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 25

bring a due process challenge to the denial of a family member’s visa. See, e.g., Bustamante v.
1
2 Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Freedom of personal choice in matters of

3 marriage and family life is, of course, one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause”).

4 Here, Plaintiffs have endured a rigorous immigrant visa process, including extensive security
5
screening, which has already separated Plaintiff family members for significant periods. The
6
EO, which includes provisions that would extend the unlawful visa processing and issuance ban
7
8 under certain circumstances, will prolong the separation of these families, perhaps indefinitely.

9 See EO § 3(e), 82 Fed. Reg. 20 at 8978 (permitting indefinite extension if the Secretary

10
determines that an affected country does not share sufficient data with the United States). Due

11
process requires a different result.
12

13

B. Named Plaintiffs’ Factual Backgrounds

14

Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and her son A.F.A.

15

Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali is a 23-year-old U.S. citizen who resides in Washington

16
State. Ms. Ali was born in Somalia and came to the United States as a child. She derived U.S.
17
citizenship on August 31, 2010 when her mother became a U.S. citizen. On August 12, 2016,
18
19 Ms. Ali filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-130) for her son, Plaintiff A.F.A.,

20 with USCIS, along with the requisite fee. A.F.A. is a 6-year-old citizen and resident of Somalia,

21 where he lives with his grandmother. On December 21, 2016, USCIS approved the immediate
22
relative I-130 petition Ms. Ali filed on behalf of A.F.A., and his case was subsequently
23
transferred to the National Visa Center (“NVC”) for the processing of an IR-2 immigrant visa for
24
25 an unmarried, minor child of a U.S. citizen. On January 17, 2017, the NVC processed Ms. Ali’s

26 payment of the requisite filing fees for the immigrant visa application and the affidavit of

27 support. On January 20, 2017, Ms. Ali electronically submitted A.F.A.’s immigrant visa

28
application (Form DS-260) and mailed all supporting documents. Ms. Ali and A.F.A. are

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 8 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 25

currently waiting for the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya to schedule an immigrant visa
1
2 interview. But pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO, Defendants have suspended the processing of

3 A.F.A.’s immigrant visa interview for 90 days from the date of the order—i.e., until April 27,

4 2017. Pursuant to Section 3(e) of the EO, there is a significant risk that the process will be
5
further suspended, preventing him from entering the United States to join his mother, Ms. Ali.
6
Plaintiffs Reema Khaled Dahman and her son G.E.
7

8

Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman is a 40-year-old LPR who lives in Washington State.

9 She is a Syrian citizen who became an LPR on September 18, 2012. On October 19, 2015, Ms.
10
Dahman filed a family-based immigrant visa petition on behalf of her son, Plaintiff G.E., with
11
USCIS, along with the requisite filing fee. G.E. is a 16-year-old citizen and resident of Syria,
12
13 where he lives with his elderly grandmother. Plaintiff G.E. and his mother have not seen each

14 other since 2012. On June 1, 2016, USCIS approved the I-130 petition Ms. Dahman filed on

15 behalf of G.E. USCIS subsequently transferred his case to the NVC for the processing of an F2
16
immigrant visa, for a minor child of an LPR. On September 22, 2016, the NVC processed Ms.
17
Dahaman’s payment of the requisite filing fees for the immigrant visa application and affidavit
18
19 of support. On December 2, 2016, Ms. Dahman electronically submitted G.E.’s immigrant visa

20 application and e-mailed the NVC all civil documents and her Affidavit of Support (Form I-864).

21 Ms. Dahman and G.E. are currently waiting for the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan to schedule
22
an immigrant visa interview. The U.S. Embassy in Amman has announced the suspension of
23
processing of immigrant visas of Syrian nationals pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO. See
24
25 https://jo.usembassy.gov/special-information-for-syrian-applicants/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2017).

26 Scheduling of G.E.’s immigrant visa interview is thus suspended for 90 days from the date of the
27
EO. Pursuant to Section 3(e) of the EO, there is a there is a significant risk that the process will
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 9 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 25

be further suspended, preventing him from entering the United States and further prolonging his
1
2 separation from his mother.

3

Plaintiff Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali and his daughter E.A.

4

Plaintiff Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali is a 38-year-old U.S. citizen who resides in

5
California. Mr. Ali was born in Yemen and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on July 19, 2010.
6

On April 25, 2011, Mr. Ali filed a family-based immigrant visa petition for his daughter,
7

8 Plaintiff E.A., with USCIS, along with the requisite filing fee. Plaintiff E.A. is a 12-year-old

9 citizen and resident of Yemen, where she had been living with her grandparents. On June 10,
10
2013, USCIS approved the immediate relative I-130 petition for E.A. On July 15, 2013, the
11
NVC processed Mr. Ali’s payment of the requisite filing fees for the immigrant visa application
12
13 and affidavit of support. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Ali electronically submitted E.A.’s Immigrant

14 Visa Electronic Application. The next day, he e-mailed all civil documents and his Affidavit of

15 Support to the NVC. The NVC then forwarded the case to the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti,
16
Djibouti for further processing and to schedule an interview. On January 22, 2017, E.A.
17
appeared with her father at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti for her interview. E.A. traveled for
18
19 about 20 hours from Yemen to Djibouti. E.A. and Mr. Ali were notified that the immigrant visa

20 was approved. E.A.’s immigrant visa was issued on January 25, 2017, and Mr. Ali and E.A. were

21 able to pick up the physical passport with the immigrant visa on January 26, 2017. In
22
preparation for their trip, Mr. Ali purchased their airplane tickets for $2,032.96. On January 26,
23
2017, E.A. paid an additional $220 immigrant fee that USCIS required after she received her
24
25 visa. See https://www.uscis.gov/file-online/uscis-immigrant-fee (last visited Jan. 30, 2017). On

26 January 28, 2017, Mr. Ali and E.A. sought to board a flight from Djibouti to the United States on
27
Ethiopian Airlines. While at the airport, Mr. Ali was told by airline officials that his daughter
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 10 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 12 of 25

was not permitted to board the flight, pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO. Mr. Ali and E.A. are
1
2 currently stranded in Djibouti, uncertain as to what to do. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the EO,

3 Defendants have not permitted E.A. to enter the United States, along with her U.S. citizen father,

4 to join her U.S. citizen mother and her two U.S. citizen sisters. The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti
5
has announced the suspension of processing of immigrant visas of Yemeni nationals pursuant to
6
Section 3(c) of the EO. See https://dj.usembassy.gov/urgent-notice-per-u-s-presidential-
7
8 executive-order-signed-january-27-2017/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2017).

9

III. THE COURT SHOULD CERTIFY THE CLASS.

10
The statutory and constitutional violations Plaintiffs assert have tremendous adverse
11
consequences. Defendants’ unilateral and discriminatory halt to immigrant visa processing for
12

13 nationals of certain countries has prevented Plaintiffs from being reunited with their family

14 members, perhaps indefinitely. Plaintiffs seek certification of the aforementioned class under

15 Rule 23(b)(2), to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices.
16
Courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely certify classes challenging the adequacy of policies
17
and procedures under the immigration laws. See, e.g., Costelo v. Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600 (C.D.
18
19 Cal. 2009) (certifying class of “[p]arents who have filed an immigrant visa petition who face

20 separation from their children as a result of the Defendants [sic] failure to act”), aff’d Cuellar de

21 Osorio v. Mayorkas, 656 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2011) rev’d on other grounds, Scialabba v. Cuellar
22
de Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191, (2014); Hootkins v. Chertoff, No. CV 07-5696, 2009 WL 57031
23
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2009) (certifying circuit-wide class of “[a]ll beneficiaries of immediate relative
24
25 petitions whose petitioning relatives died prior to beneficiaries’ adjudication and approval of

26 lawful permanent resident status”); Tenrec, Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigrations
27
Servs., No. 3:16-CV-995-SI, 2016 WL 5346095 (D. Or. Sept. 22, 2016) (denying motion to
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 11 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 25

dismiss in class action challenging H-1B nonimmigrant visa lottery); see also Mendez Rojas, et
1
2 al. v. Johnson, et al., 2:16-cv-1024-RSM, ECF No. 37 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017) (certifying

3 two nationwide classes of asylum seekers challenging defective asylum application procedures);

4 A.B.T. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2013 WL 5913323 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4,
5
2013) (certifying nationwide class and approving settlement amending practices by the
6
Executive Office for Immigration Review and United States Citizenship and Immigration
7
8 Services that precluded asylum applicants from receiving employment authorization); Roshandel

9 v. Chertoff, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (certifying district-wide class of delayed
10
naturalization cases); Gonzales v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 239 F.R.D. 620, 627-29 (W.D.
11
Wash. 2006) (certifying circuit-wide class challenging USCIS policy contradicting binding
12
13 precedent), preliminary injunction vacated, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) (establishing new rule

14 but no challenge made to class certification); Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. C 04–2686, 2004 WL

15 2297990, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (certifying nationwide class of lawful permanent
16
residents challenging delays in receiving documentation of their status); Barahona-Gomez v.
17
Reno, 236 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding district court had jurisdiction to grant
18
19 injunctive relief in certified circuit-wide class action challenging unlawful immigration directives

20 issued by EOIR); Gorbach v. Reno, 181 F.R.D. 642, 644 (W.D. Wash. 1998), aff’d on other

21 grounds, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (certifying nationwide class of persons
22
challenging validity of administrative denaturalization proceedings); Gete v. INS, 121 F.3d 1285,
23
1299 (9th Cir. 1997) (vacating district court’s denial of class certification in case challenging
24
25 inadequate notice and standards in INS vehicle forfeiture procedure); Walters v. Reno, 1996 WL

26 897662, at *5-8 (W.D. Wash. 1996), aff’d, 145 F.3d 1032, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
27

28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 12 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 14 of 25

Reno v. Walters, 526 U.S. 1003 (1999) (certifying nationwide class of individuals challenging
1
2 adequacy of notice in document fraud cases).

3

Certification of such classes is consistent with Rule 23(b)(2). The rule was intended to

4 “facilitate the bringing of class actions in the civil-rights area,” 7AA WRIGHT & MILLER,
5
FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1775, at 71 (3d ed. 2005), especially those—like the present
6
case—seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. This rationale applies with particular force to
7
8 civil rights suits like this one, where, absent class certification, there likely will be no opportunity

9 to resolve the legal claims at issue. Proposed class members will have no opportunity to
10
challenge the suspension, denial or revocation of their immigrant visas, as the EO has been
11
applied to halt processing entirely. Moreover, the core issues here, like the class actions cited
12
13 above, involve questions of law, rather than questions of fact, and are thereby well suited for

14 resolution on a class-wide basis. See, e.g., Unthaksinkun v. Porter, No. C11-0588JLR, 2011 WL

15 4502050, at *15 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2011) (concluding that since all class members were

16
subject to the same notice process, its ruling as to the legal sufficiency of the process “would
17
apply equally to all class members”).
18

19

In reviewing whether to certify a nationwide class, courts consider whether (1) there are

20 similar cases currently pending in other jurisdictions, and (2) the plaintiffs are challenging a

21 nationwide policy or practice. See, e.g., Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 290
22
F.R.D. 579, 589 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Clark v. Astrue, 274 F.R.D. 462, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Many
23
lawsuits have emerged challenging different elements of the EO, including another lawsuit filed
24
25 on behalf of the state of Washington. State of Washington v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-0141-

26 JLR (W.D. Wash.). There are also other suits challenging different aspects of the EO. See, e.g.,
27
Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al., 2:17-cv-0094-JCC (W.D. Wash.) (challenging application of the
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 13 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 15 of 25

EO to persons residing in the U.S. applying for immigration benefits). However, this case
1
2 focuses exclusively on those who were approved, or are in the process of applying for,

3 immigrant visas abroad (as opposed to those seeking to enter on nonimmigrant visas, and those

4 seeking to enter as refugees). Nor does it include habeas claims for persons who were detained
5
upon arriving to the United States after the EO was issued. There are no other classes certified
6
that have address the issues presented. And as noted above, nationwide classes challenging
7
8 immigration policies and practices are regularly certified given that immigration policy is based

9 on uniform, federal law. Further, nationwide certification is required in this case in order to

10
effectuate Congress’s intent to eliminate national origin discrimination in the issuance of

11
immigrant visas.
12

13

Moreover, it would be unworkable to limit the scope of certification to anything but a

14 nationwide class. The proposed class consists of individuals residing throughout the United

15 States and in countries around the world. Thus, any challenge to Defendants’ discriminatory and
16
unlawful suspension of immigrant visa processing must apply to the entire nation. Certification
17
that is more limited in scope would result in Defendants treating affected individuals differently
18
19 by virtue of their location—an arbitrary and unjust result. See Gorbach, 181 F.R.D. at 644

20 (finding certification of a nationwide class particularly fitting because “anything less that [sic] a

21 nationwide class would result in an anomalous situation allowing the INS to pursue
22
denaturalization proceedings against some citizens, but not others, depending on which district
23
they reside in”).
24

25

A. This Action Satisfies the Class Certification Requirements of Rule 23(a).

26

1. The Proposed Class Members Are so Numerous That Joinder Is

Impracticable.

27

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

28
impracticable.” “‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 14 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 16 of 25

inconvenience of joining all members of the class.” Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Est., Inc., 329
1
2 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964) (citation omitted). No fixed number of class members is

3 required. Perez-Funez v. District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, 611 F. Supp.
4 990, 995 (C.D. Cal. 1984). Courts generally find this requirement is satisfied even when
5
relatively few class members are involved. See, e.g., Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d
6
1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982) (class of 39 sufficient), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810
7
8 (1982); Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Board Of Educ. Of Portland, Ark. School Dist., 446 F.2d 763, 765-66

9 (8th Cir. 1971) (class of 17 sufficient); McCluskey v. Trs. Of Red Dot Corp. Employee Stock
10
Ownership Plan & Trust, 268 F.R.D. 670, 674-76 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (class of 27 sufficient).
11
The proposed class is numerous. According to Defendant State Department’s own
12
13 statistics, 31,804 immigrant visas were issued to immigrants from the seven countries included in

14 the EO in FY 2016 (7,727 from Iran, 3,660 from Iraq, 383 from Libya, 1,797 from Somalia,

15 2,606 from Sudan, 2,633 from Syria, and 12,998 from Yemen).1 The majority of these visas
16
were the result of family-based immigrant petitions, demonstrate that there are thousands of U.S.
17
citizens and LPR visa petitioners affected by the EO.2 Indeed, over the last decade, more than
18
19 500,000 nationals of the affected countries have been granted LPR status.3 Moreover, five days

20 after the EO was issued, Defendant DHS reported having prevented 940 individuals, many of
21 whom are immigrant visa holders, like Petitioner E.A., from boarding flights to the United
22

23

24

25 1

U.S. STATE DEP’T, Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State of Chargeability or Place of Birth):

Fiscal Year 2016 (2016), available at

26 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2016AnnualReport/FY16AnnualReportTableIII.pdf (last visited Feb. 1, 2017).

27 2

Id.

3 Marcelo Rochabrun, Trump Order Will Block 500,000 Legal U.S. Residents From Returning to America

28 From Trips Abroad, PROPUBLIC.ORG (Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-

executive-order-could-block-legal-residents-from-returning-to-america (last visited Feb. 1, 2017).

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 15 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 17 of 25

States.4 Therefore, at the very least, the proposed class encompasses thousands of U.S. citizens,
1
2 LPRs and their family members, as well as other beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions. Cf.

3 Ali, 213 F.R.D. at 408 (noting that “the Court does not need to know the exact size of the
4 putative class, ‘so long as general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large’”
5
(quoting Perez-Funez, 611 F. Supp. at 995)); Newberg on Class Actions § 3:13 (noting that “it is
6
well settled that a plaintiff need not allege the exact number or specific identity of proposed class
7
8 members”).

9

Numerosity is not a close question here; but even were it so, the Court should certify the

10
class. See Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., 183 F.R.D. 189, 194 (E.D. Pa. 1998)
11
(“[W]here the numerosity question is a close one, the trial court should find that numerosity
12
13 exists, since the court has the option to decertify the class later pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1).”).

14 Defendants are in possession of the precise number of proposed class members, but Plaintiffs

15 have demonstrated that the number of current and future class members would make their joinder
16
impracticable, thus making class certificate appropriate.
17
2. The Classes Present Common Questions of Law and Fact.
18
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact that are common to the class.
19
“‘[A]ll questions of fact and law need not be common’” to satisfy the commonality requirement,
20
21 however. Ellis, 657 F.3d at 981 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th

22 Cir. 1998)). One shared legal issue can suffice. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1122 (“[T]he
23
commonality requirements asks [sic] us to look only for some shared legal issue or a common
24
core of facts.”).
25

26

27

4

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

28 States, available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

(last visited Feb. 1, 2017).

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 16 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 18 of 25

“Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered
1
2 the same injury.’” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (citation omitted). To establish the existence of

3 a common question of law, the putative class members’ claims “must depend upon a common

4 contention” that is “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that
5
determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one
6
of the claims in one stroke.” Id. Thus, “[w]hat matters to class certification . . . is not the raising
7
8 of common ‘questions’ . . . but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate

9 common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
10
omitted).
11
The commonality standard is more liberal in civil rights suits “challeng[ing] a system-
12
13 wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275

14 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. California, 543 U.S.

15 499, 504-05 (2005). “[C]lass suits for injunctive or declaratory relief,” like this case, “by their

16
very nature often present common questions satisfying Rule 23(a)(2).” 7A WRIGHT, MILLER &
17
KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1763 at 226.
18

19

In the instant case, the proposed class members allege common harms: the unlawful and

20 discriminatory suspension of immigrant visa processing, revocation of previously granted visas,

21 and refusal to honor facially valid visas. For many class members, this harm is compounded by
22
an interference with their right to live as families in the United States. For others, it is also
23
accompanied by an interference with their employment prospects and future livelihood.
24

25

These harms, moreover, are rooted in a common core of facts: the EO and Defendants’

26 implementation of it. All class members have petitioned for, or are beneficiaries of, an
27
immigrant visa petition filed for an individual from one of the seven affected countries. Further,
28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 17 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 19 of 25

all of the putative members make the same legal claims—that the EO violates the INA, which
1
2 prevents nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas, as well as their

3 constitutionally protected rights to due process and equal protection. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶106-118.

4

Factual variations as to, for example, the manner in which the EO affects specific named

5
Plaintiffs are insufficient to defeat commonality. This case turns on the existence of a uniform
6

policy, set forth in Section 3(c) of the EO, which applies equally to all class members regardless
7

8 of any factual differences. Courts have affirmed that such factual questions are well-suited to

9 resolution on a classwide basis. See, e.g., Stockwell v. City & County of San Francisco, 749 F.3d
10
1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing denial of class certification motion because movants had
11
“identified a single, well-enunciated, uniform policy” that was allegedly responsible for the
12
13 harms suffered by the class).

14

In sum, the questions of law presented here are particularly well-suited to resolution on a

15 classwide basis, as “the court must decide only once whether the application” of Defendants’
16
policies and practices “does or does not violate” the law. Troy v. Kehe Food Distribs., Inc., 276
17
F.R.D. 642, 654 (W.D. Wash. 2011); see also LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1332 (9th Cir.
18
19 1985) (holding that the constitutionality of an INS procedure “plainly” created common

20 questions of law and fact).5 Because all proposed class members raise the same set of common

21 questions, all of which can be remedied in a single stroke by addressing the legal claims
22
presented, this Court should find the commonality requirement satisfied here.
23

24

25

26

27

28 5

As such, resolution on a classwide basis also serves a purpose behind the commonality doctrine: practical

and efficient case management. Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1122.

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 18 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 20 of 25

3. The Claims of the Named Plaintiffs Are Typical of the Claims of the

1

Members of the Proposed Class.

2

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the class representatives be “typical of the claims

3
. . . of the class.” To establish typicality, “a class representative must be part of the class and
4
‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” Gen. Tel. Co. of
5
6 the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982) (citation omitted). Factual differences among

7 class members do not defeat typicality in a case dealing with a uniform policy or practice,

8 provided that “the unnamed class members have injuries similar to those of the named plaintiffs
9
and that the injuries result from the same, injurious course of conduct.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at
10
869; see also Unthaksinkun, 2011 WL 4502050 at *13 (same); La Duke, 762 F.2d at 1332 (“The
11
12 minor differences in the manner in which the representative’s Fourth Amendment rights were

13 violated does not render their claims atypical of those of the class.”); Smith v. Univ. of Wash.

14 Law Sch., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1342 (W.D. Wash. 1998) (“When it is alleged that the same
15
unlawful conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff and the class sought to be
16
represented, the typicality requirement is usually satisfied, irrespective of varying fact patterns
17
18 which underlie individual claims.”) (citation omitted).

19

Here, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class

20
members. Like the named Plaintiffs, each proposed class member has diligently pursued the
21
immigrant visa process but been prevented from completing it due to the EO. Class
22
23 representatives include individuals affected by the EO at various stages of the immigrant process

24 before entering the United States, all of whom challenge the legality of the EO under the INA

25 and the Due Process Clause. Because the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members raise
26
common legal claims and are united in their interest and injury, the element of typicality is met.
27

28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 19 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 21 of 25

4. The Named Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests of the

1

Proposed Class Members, and Counsel Are Qualified to Litigate this

2

Action.

3

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

4 the interests of the class.” “Whether the class representatives satisfy the adequacy requirement

5 depends on ‘the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a

6
sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood that the suit is
7
collusive.’” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (citations omitted).
8

9

a. Named Plaintiffs

The named Plaintiffs each seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and have no
10

11 interest antagonistic to those of other class members; they will thus fairly and adequately protect

12 the interests of the class members they seek to represent. Their mutual goal is to declare
13 Defendants’ challenged EO unlawful and to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief that would
14
not only cure this illegality but remedy the ongoing harm to all class members. They thus seek a
15
16 remedy for the same injuries, which could be addressed by halting the application and
17 enforcement of the EO. Thus, the interests of the representatives and of the class members are

18 aligned.

19

20

b. Counsel

Plaintiffs’ counsel are adequate. Counsel are considered qualified when they can
21

22 establish their experience in previous class actions and cases involving the same field of law.

23 See Lynch v. Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30, 37 (N.D. Cal. 1984); Marcus v. Heckler, 620 F. Supp. 1218,
24
1223-24 (N.D. Ill. 1985); Adams v. Califano, 474 F. Supp. 974, 979 (D. Md. 1979). Plaintiffs
25
are represented by attorneys from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the National
26
27 Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Immigration Council.

28 Counsel have a demonstrated commitment to protecting the rights and interests of noncitizens

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 20 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 22 of 25

and have considerable experience in handling complex and class action litigation in the
1
2 immigration field. See Declaration of Matt Adams; Declaration of Melissa Crow; Declaration of

3 Mary Kenney; Declaration of Trina Realmuto.6 These attorneys have represented numerous

4 classes of immigrants in actions that successfully obtained class relief. Plaintiffs’ counsel will
5
zealously represent both named and absent class members.
6
B. This Action Also Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), under which Plaintiffs seek certification,
8
9 requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply

10 generally to the class.” It also “requires ‘that the primary relief sought is declaratory or

11 injunctive.’” Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1125 (citation omitted). “The rule does not require [the
12
court] to examine the viability or bases of class members’ claims for declaratory and injunctive
13
relief, but only to look at whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable
14
15 to all of them.” Id. This suit satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), as Defendants have a

16 nationwide policy that is injurious to the rights and interests of the named Plaintiffs and proposed

17 class members.
18
Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory EO has prevented the named Plaintiffs and
19
proposed class members from completing the immigrant visa process, preventing many from
20
21 immediately joining petitioners in the United States. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 ¶¶60-62, 73-76, 89-92.

22 “The only appropriate remedy, if these allegations are established, is declaratory judgment and
23
final injunctive relief.” Walter, 1996 WL 897662 at *7. Defendants’ actions in this case violate
24
Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional rights. By its very language, the EO applies across the
25
26 board to all Plaintiffs—Defendants have thus unquestionably acted “on grounds generally

27

28
6

These declarations will be filed concurrently herewith.

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 21 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 23 of 25

applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
1
2 declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); see also

3 Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1126 (finding that class of noncitizens detained during immigration

4 proceedings met Rule 23(b)(2) criteria because “all class members’ [sic] seek the exact same
5
relief as a matter of statutory or, in the alternative, constitutional right”); see also Parsons v.
6
Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 688 (9th Cir. 2014) (Rule 23(b)(2) “requirements are unquestionably
7
8 satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from

9 policies or practices that are generally applicable to the class as a whole”). Hence, the

10
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met.

11

IV. CONCLUSION

12

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and enter the enclosed

13
proposed certification order.
14

15

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2017.

16

Respectfully submitted,

17

s/Matt Adams

s/Mary Kenney

18

Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

Mary Kenney, pro hac vice admission forthcoming

19

s/Glenda Aldana

Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987 s/Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

20

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac

21

s/Maria Lucia Chavez

vice admission forthcoming

Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

22

application for admission pending

s/Melissa Crow

Melissa Crow, pro hac vice

23

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

admission forthcoming

24

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200

25

(206) 957-8611

Washington, D.C. 20005

(206) 587-4025 (fax)
26

(202) 507-7512 (202) 742-5619 (fax)

27

s/Trina Realmuto

Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice admission

28

forthcoming

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 22 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 24 of 25

1

s/Kristin Macleod-Ball

2

Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice admission

forthcoming

3

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT

4

OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

5

14 Beacon Street, Suite 602

Boston, MA 02108

6

(617) 227-9727

(617) 227-5495 (fax)
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 23 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 3 Filed 02/02/17 Page 25 of 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1

2

I, Matt Adams, hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I arranged for electronic filing

3 of the foregoing motion, proposed order, corporate disclosure statement, and supporting

4 declarations with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system as well as the mailing of

5 these documents by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, to each of the following:

6 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States of America
7 United States Attorney’s Office 8 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
Seattle, WA 98101-1271
9

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES Office of the General Counsel United States Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528

10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 11 The Executive Office
Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600 12 600 19th Street NW
Washington, DC 20522
13
14

Lori SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS Office of the General Counsel United States Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528

15 Tom SHANNON, Acting Secretary of State OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF

16 The Executive Office Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Office of General Counsel

17 600 19th Street NW

Washington, DC 20511

Washington, DC 20522
18

19 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
20 Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20528
21
22

Michael DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National Intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20511

23
John F. KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security 24 Office of the General Counsel
United States Department of Homeland Security 25 Washington, DC 20528

26
Executed in Seattle, Washington, on February 2, 2017.
27

28 s/ Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

MOT. CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 24 of 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 11 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 11 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 11 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 11 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 12 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 12 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 12 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 6

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR 11 Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Ahmed

12 Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals and on
13 behalf of others similarly situated,

DECLARATION OF AHMED MOHAMMED AHMED ALI

14

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

15 v.
16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 17 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
Tom SHANNON, Acting Secretary of State; 18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 19 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 20 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 21 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 22 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting
Director of National Intelligence,
23
Defendants-Respondents.
24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF

AHMED MOHAMMAD AHMED ALI

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 0

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 6

1
I, Ahmed Mohammad Ahmed ALI, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

2
1.

I was born on May 1, 1978 in Alshear, Ibb, Yemen. I currently reside at 724 Gamay

3
Court, Los Banos, CA, 93635. I make this declaration in support of a temporary restraining order
4
to help effectuate my daughter, E.A.’s entry to the United States.
5
2. I am married to a U.S. citizen and have 2 U.S. citizen children and one child with a valid
6
immigrant visa, but who has been denied the ability to board a plane due to the January 27, 2017
7
executive order, merely because she is a citizen of Yemen.
8

3.
9

My wife and I have been trying for so many years to have our whole immediate family

united safely in the United States. My wife Intikhab Mohamed Saleh (“Intikhab”) and I own a
10

home in Los Banos, California where we live with our two U.S. citizen children, and where we
11

have been hoping that our daughter E.A. would also be residing. We have a monthly mortgage
12

payment of approximately $950. My wife has been helping to raise our daughters. We are a very
13

close family. Our family is Muslim.
14

15 4. I am the sole breadwinner for my family of five. I am the manager at the Buy N Save

16 Market in Los Banos that is in a local shopping market and part-owner of Los Amigos. I have

17 worked at Buy N Save since 2004. I work long hours so that I can provide for my family. I make

18 approximately $35,000 a year. I pay my U.S. taxes.

19 5. I married my wife, Intikhab on May 3, 2001. My eldest daughter, S.A.M.A. was born

20 within one year of our marriage – on February 24, 2002. Both my wife Intikhab and my daughter

21 S.A.M.A. are U.S. citizens.

22 6. I first entered the United States with my wife and daughter S.A.M.A. on January 27,

23 2004, and became a lawful permanent resident that date, based on a visa petition my U.S. citizen

24 wife had filed on my behalf. I became a naturalized U.S. citizen on July 19, 2010.

25 7. Approximately 6 months after my family and I entered the United States in 2004, we

26 received news that Intikhab’s mother had fallen ill and required caretaking assistance. As a

27 result, Intikhab decided she would temporarily return to Yemen (with S.A.M.A.) to care for her

28 mother. However, the length of Intikhab’s trip increased because my mother-in-law’s health

DECLARATION OF

AHMED MOHAMMAD AHMED ALI

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 6

1
improved slowly. By the time Intikhab left for Yemen, she was already pregnant with my second

2
daughter, E.A.A. E.A.A. was born while my wife was still in Yemen, on December 3, 2004

3
8.

I remained in the United States where I was working to financially support the family.

4
When my wife left for Yemen, we planned for her to return to the United States as soon as her

5
mother’s health improved. At no point did we intend for my wife to live in Yemen permanently.
6
With my second child on the way, I knew it was best that I remain in the United States, although
7
I knew the separation would be difficult.
8

9.
9

When I learned that my mother-in-law’s health had improved to the point that she no

longer required my wife’s caretaking assistance, I immediately began making arrangements for
10

my family to join me in the United States. By 2010, I had saved enough money to cover the
11

travel expenses for my entire family (Intikhab, S.A.M.A., and E.A.A.).
12

10. Around 2010, when my wife and daughters was considering joining me in the United
13

States, we thought our daughter E.A.A. was a U.S. citizen since both me and my wife were
14

citizens. However, we didn’t know the technicality of the law, and only later learned that in fact
15

16 she was not a U.S. citizen because my wife had not physically resided in the United States for 5

17 years before E.A.A.’s birth. Thus, we learned we needed to have her go through the immigrant

18 visa consular process.

19 11. Thus, on April 25, 2011, I filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-130) for

20 my daughter E.A.A. with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) along

21 with the requisite $420 filing fee. USCIS approved the immediate relative I-130 petition for

22 E.A.A. on June 10, 2013.

23 12. On August 11, 2014, E.A.A., with the assistance of counsel, filed the Form DS-260,

24 Immigrant Visa Electronic Application. On August 12, 2014, counsel for E.A.A. emailed the

25 National Visa Center all of the civil documents.

26 13. Meanwhile, my wife had continued to stay with our older daughter S.A.M.A. and E.A.A.

27 in Yemen so that they travel to the United States together. However, while the immigrant visa

28 application was pending, the situation in Yemen deteriorated and became increasingly

DECLARATION OF

AHMED MOHAMMAD AHMED ALI

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 6

1
dangerous. Frustrated that the immigrant visa process was taking so long, and worried about the
2
security situation in Yemen, my wife and I made the difficult decision sometime in 2013 that she
3
and S.A.M.A. would come to the United States, and E.A.A. would remain in Sana’a with my
4
parents, her grandparents. We were hopeful the immigrant visa would be approved soon.
5
14. My wife and I have had another daughter, S., who was born on February 4, 2015 in the
6
United States and is a U.S. citizen.
7

8 15. Meanwhile, the consular services in Yemen shut down so we learned the immigrant visa

9 interview would be scheduled at a different consulate. Finally, on December 15, 2016, the

10 National Visa Center sent an email that an immigrant visa interview was scheduled for January

11 22, 2017.

12 16. I then made arrangements for my daughter to be able to appear at this interview. E.A.A.’s 13 uncle helped her to travel by bus for over fifteen hours through a very dangerous part of Yemen, 14 and then took a flight from Aden, Yemen to Jordan. I meanwhile flew from the United States to 15 Jordan to meet my daughter. We then obtained a visitor visa for my daughter to travel from 16 Jordan to Djibouti. My Djibouti visa and my daughter’s Djibouti visa were issued on January 15,
17
2017 and are valid for one entry for 14 days. We then flew from Jordan to Djibouti on January
18
17, 2017.
19
17. We arrived in Djibouti with enough time that my daughter could get her medical
20
examination that was required for the immigrant visa interview.
21
22 18. On January 22, 2017, I accompanied my daughter E.A.A. to the immigrant visa interview
23 at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, and we were notified that the immigrant visa was approved. We
24 were required to give the Embassy E.A.A.’s passport so that the visa could be issued. We were
25 instructed to check a website to see when visa would be ready to pick up.

26 19. We checked the website and learned the visa was issued on January 25, 2017, and went to

27 pick up the visa at the next available time that was permissible, which was on Thursday, January

28 26, 2017. The visa is valid until July 21, 2017.

DECLARATION OF

AHMED MOHAMMAD AHMED ALI

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 6

1
2 20. We quickly attempted to make flight arrangements to the United States. We first arranged 3 a flight that departed on Friday, January 27, 2017, but flight flew through Canada, and the airline 4 called and said we would have to cancel the flight because my daughter didn’t have a visa to 5 Canada. We therefore quickly booked the next flight we could, which left on Saturday, January 6 28, 2017.

7
21. Our Ethiopian Airlines flight was scheduled to depart Djibouti on Saturday, January 28,
8
2017 at 7:00 pm local time (which was 6am pacific time). The flight had multiple layovers, but
9
final destination was San Francisco International Airport. However, after we had gone through
10
security and were getting ready to board our flight, we were told by airline officials that my
11
daughter was not permitted board the flight due to the U.S President’s Executive Order that was
12
issued on January 27, 2017. I immediately called my attorney to inform her of the situation.
13

14 22. On January 28, 2017, my attorney sent a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti requesting

15 that my daughter E.A.A. be issued a travel letter because she should qualify for a case-by-case

16 exemption to the executive order because it would in the national interest to permit her to come

17 to the United States with our family. She spoke to a consular officer in Djibouti on January 30,

18 2017, but was informed that the embassy did not have guidance yet on how the waivers to the

19 executive action would be reviewed or issued.
20
23. We have thus been extending our stay at a hotel in Djibouti, which is quite expensive. We
21
had been paying approximately $115 a night, although recently moved to a smaller and more
22
23 affordable room for $80 a night.

24 24. I was able to take a leave of absence from my work to travel to help my daughter E.A.A.

25 come to the United States. But now, I do not know when I will be able to return to the United

26 States and do not know when I will be able to earn money for my family.

27
25.
28

The uncertainty of our situation is very stressful. We have no idea when we will be able

DECLARATION OF

AHMED MOHAMMAD AHMED ALI

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 Page 6 of 6

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 15 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR 11 Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Ahmed

12 Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals and on
13 behalf of others similarly situated,

DECLARATION OF CAROL E. EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

14

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

15 v.
16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 17 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
Tom SHANNON, Acting Secretary of State; 18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 19 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 20 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 21 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 22 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting
Director of National Intelligence,
23
Defendants-Respondents.
24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF CAROL E. EDWARD Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 15 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3

DECLARATION OF CAROL E. EDWARD Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 15 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3

DECLARATION OF CAROL E. EDWARD Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 17 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 17 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 17 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 17 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 18 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 18 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 18 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4 Honorable James L. Robart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: 2: 1 7-cv-00 I 35-JLR

Khaled DAHMAN; G.8., a minor; Ahmed

Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on

behalf of themselves as individuals and on

DECLARATION OF MOHAMED BARRE

behalf of others similarly situated'

OMAR

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

t4

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

l5

l6 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States

l7 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

Tom SHANNON, Acting Secretary of State;

l8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

t9

SECURITY; John F. I(ELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

20 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; LOTi

SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 2l OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 22 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting
Director of National Intelligence,

23
Defendants-

24

25

26

2',1

28
DECLARATION OF MOHAMED BARRE OMAR Case No. 2: t 7-cv-00135-JLR

NoRTHwEsr IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PRoJEcr

615 S€cond Ave , Ste 400

-0

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-861I

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

I

follows: I, MOHAMED BARRE OMAR, declare under penalty of perjury as

I

l.

I am a United States citizen. I live in Tukwila, Washington. I own a small eroceV stor. ir,l

Schools. Seattle, Washington, and I am an instructional assistant for Seattle Public

2. I was born in Somalia. I came to the United States as a refugee when I was 61 Vears old I
:l I
Washington. from Kenya. I became a U.S. Citizen on March 13,2012 in Seattle,

3. in 6 My biological son is Ahmed Mohamed Barre. He was bom on October 5, 1992

I

7

I

Mombasa, Kenya. He is a citizen of Somalia by birth, because my wife and I were refueees. He

8
I
and his mother moved to Ethiopia shortly after he was bom. His mother died in Kenva on ARril
9
r0 20,2012. He grew up in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and has not left it since moving there. He has I

ll never physically been in Somalia

I

12 4.

I

last

saw

Ahmed

in

2012,

before

his

mother

died.

She

had

been

in

Kenya,

so

I

visited

I I

l3 her and then went to Ethiopia to visit him. After visiting him, I decided to apply to brine him to I

l4 the United States to live with me. He is my only child that does not live in the United States'

5. The I

l5

I filed my Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, for him on october 25, 2012.

was I
l6 preference classification for the case is 201 B INA Minor child of USC. The petition I

an l'l lupp.ou.a and transferred to the National Visa Center in 2015. My son was interviewed for

I

l8 ,,'._,*run, visa ar the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa. Ethiopia on January 23,2017 at 07:a5 nM.

2017' |
l9 1",..ur. was approved and his immigranl visa was issued on January 25'

I
I

20 lU

then Upon receipt of his immigrant visa' we had planned to have him pack up and

I

2l nur.t,ur. a plane ticket to the U.S. The executive order was issued before he could buV a ticket'

to I

I

22 lH" hu, utt.*pt.d to buy a tickel. but no airline will sell one to him because theY do not want

I

rllr*. varid 23

rr,. risk that the U.S. will not apow hirn to immigrate despite the issuance of a

I

visa.

limmigrant

I

25 lt.

Mv son has never lived in Somalia. has no experience with his country ofcitizenship' andl

ro 26 I an". no, know how to navigate the risks of living lhere. lt is unsafe and impossible for him

I

lll so,nutiu 2'7 ll tiu. in
28
llogcaennrtoNoo
llllvcoars-renuNe2oo.:2B1A:17RR7-E-ccovvM--0A00R01315r-5Jl-RrlR -l|

I
NoRrHwEsr lMMlcn'qut RlcHTs protpcr I 6|5SecondAve Ste 400 |
seanle' wA 98104 | uoo-ssr-rorr

ll.*.*"

I

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

;l 8.

My son cannot retum to Kenya. The Kenyan government is actively refusing entry for

Somalian citizens and is refusing to take additional refugees. He no longer holds refugee status

;l in Kenya.

5l 9.

I fear for my son's safety in Ethiopia due to the state of emergency related to protests

.l violence in Addis Ababa and throughout Oromia. My son has little opportunity in Ethiopia,

because he is not a citizen there, and is present only at the permission of the government.
'7

10. I fear that my son's immigrant visa will expire before he the travel ban in the executive
8

order is lifted for citizens of Somalia. I would then lose his priority date of October 23,2012'
9

l0 which allows him to be the immediate relative, minor child of a U.S. Citizen for visa preference

purposes under the Child Status Protection Act. I would be required to file a new petition for

t2 him as the adult child of a U.s. citizen, family-sponsored first preference category, which has a
l3 cunent priority date of January 1, 201 1 . It would most likely take over six years before he
t4 be able to obtain a new immigrant visa to the united States, which would mean he would be o l5 the age of 30 by the time he arrived. That delay would directly intelfere with his ability to l6 a school in the United States and build a career. It would have a permanent, negative impact on t'7 his eaming abilities and his ability to marry and grow a family. It is not reasonable nor rational

l8 topreventmyson,whoisaSomaliancitizenonlyasaresultofhisbeingbomtorefugeeparents

t9 in Kenya, from coming to the U'S.

. 20 1 1

It is too expensive for me to travel to Ethiopia regularly' It has been nearly five years

21 since the last time I visited Ethiopia. My son lives over 8,000 miles from me. His time zone is

22 11 hours ahead of mine. When I go to bed, he is waking up; when he is going to bed' I am

23 wakingup.ItiSdifficultforustotalkonthephonebecauseofthetimedifference,butwetryto

24 make time for each other every week. I have to send him money to suppoft in Ethiopia, because

25 he does not have ajob. It is an enorrnous financial and emotional hardship to my son, myself,
26
andmyfamilyforhimtoliveinEthiopiawhileeveryoneelselivesintheUnitedStates.
2'7

28
DECLARATTON OF MOHAMED BARRE OMAR Case No. 2: l7-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMICRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave.. Ste 400

-2

Seattle. WA 98104 206-951 -861 |

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 19 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

12. I want to bring my whole family togetler by having all of us live in the United States.
My son is the only person left outside of the United States. I want him to be able to go to a good
university, to have a career, and to be able to live the American Dream' Moments before
27 , 2017 , I believed that dream was a reality and that we would be reunited. Now, because of
5
the executive order, I no longer know ifthat dream is possible.
6
13. Please reunite my family by allowing my son to come to the United States as quickly as
7
possible.
8

9

l0

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing

ll true and correct to the best ofmy inforrnation, knowledge' belief.

l2

l3

Executed on this lst day of February ,2017, in Seattle, Washington'

t4

l5

l6

14S39 Military Rd S, #108

t7

Tukwila, WA 98168
(206) s66-4338

l8

l9

20
2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DECLARATION OF MOHAMED BARRE OMAR Case No. 2: l7-cv-00135-JLR

NoRTHWEST IMMIGMNT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Stc. 400

-3

S€attle, WA 98104

206-957-861I

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 20 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 20 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 20 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 20 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 21 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 21 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 21 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 21 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 21 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 22 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 22 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 22 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 22 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 23 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 23 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 23 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 24 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 24 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 24 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 25 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 25 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 25 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 27

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Ahmed 11 Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

12 behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

13

Plaintiffs,

14 v.

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 3, 2017

15
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

16 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

Rex W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

18 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

19 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori

SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 20 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL

21 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National Intelligence,1

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is substituted for Defendant Tom Shannon pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 25(d).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 0

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 27

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

On February 3, 2017, this Court issued a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO)

3 in Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141-JLR (W.D. Wash.), enjoining and restraining

4 President Trump, the Department of State (DOS), and the Department of Homeland Security
5 (DHS) from, inter alia, enforcing Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13769 (EO), entitled
6 “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8977.2 7
Section 3 of the EO suspends entry into the United States of citizens or nationals of Iran, Iraq, 8
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—all predominantly Muslim countries—for a 9
minimum of 90 days, allegedly for national security reasons. 3 Plaintiffs file this motion for 10
preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, see Dkt. 3, to ensure 11
that they are not subject to ongoing and future harm as a result of the unlawful EO, similar to the 12 13 harm many of them experienced over the last week. They also ask that the Court convert the
14 motion to a TRO should the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolve the existing TRO in
15 Washington on a procedural basis, or for a reason other than a determination with respect to the

16 merits of the challenge.

17

During the week prior to this Court’s order in Washington, Defendants revoked the visas

18 of thousands—if not tens of thousands—of purported class members pursuant to Section 3(c) of

19 the EO. Also during the past week, Defendants suspended all immigrant visa processing,

20 cancelling consular interviews and suspending adjudication of immigrant visa applications for

21

22 2

At least eight district courts already have issued temporary restraining orders enjoining Section 3(c) of the

23 E.O. See Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480 (E.D. NY Jan. 28, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. C17-126 (W.D.
Wash. Jan. 28, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017); Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. CV 17-0702

24 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017); Mohammed v. United States, No. CV 17-00786 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017);
Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10310-VAR-SDD (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2017); State of

25 Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00141-JLR (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). One court initially issued a TRO, but
declined to extend it. See Loughalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154-NMG, Dkt. 6 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017) & Dkt. 69

26 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017).

3

None of the individuals who committed the attack on September 11, 2001 were from these seven listed

27 countries, and the Trump Administration has provided no evidence suggesting that the longstanding, uniform, and
rigorous vetting process at U.S. embassies and consulates serving nationals from these seven countries is even

28 remotely less secure than elsewhere.

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 27

1 thousands of proposed class members from the seven countries, leaving them stranded abroad

2 and indefinitely separated from their families and employment. Plaintiffs and proposed class

3 members are suffering both emotionally and financially from these separations and from the

4 existing lack of certainty and transparency in the immigrant visa process caused by Section 3 of

5 the EO. Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 65(b),

6 Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin Section 3 and order Defendants to resume lawful processing

7 and issuance of immigrant visas and to allow individuals approved for immigrant visas to be
8 reunited with their family and employer petitioners in the United States.
9 Plaintiffs and proposed class members4 have standing to challenge Section 3 of the EO
10 and can overwhelmingly demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of
11
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, that the balance of equities tips 12

13 in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

14

Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue a preliminary injunction which:

15

1. Enjoins and restrains Defendants from enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order 13769 (EO), in so far as it precludes persons approved for immigrant visas from

16

boarding flights to the United States and entering the country as lawful permanent

residents;

17

2. Enjoins and restrains Defendants from applying Section 3 of the EO to suspend

18

the processing and/or issuance of immigrant visas to Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and A.F.A., Reema Khaled Dahman and G.E., and all other proposed class

19

members who have filed visa petitions and the beneficiaries of those visa petitions

who are applying for immigrant visas;

20

3. Enjoins and restrains Defendants from revoking immigrant visas based on Section

21

3 of the EO; 4. Orders Defendants to reinstate and, where necessary, reissue, the immigrant visas

22

of all nationals from the seven countries that were revoked pursuant to the

issuance of the EO, without the need for the foreign national to reapply for a visa;

23

5. Orders Defendants to issue transportation letters, where necessary, to all nationals

24

from the seven countries with validly issued immigrant visas, including all

individuals whose visas are reinstated pursuant to #4 above; and

25

6. Orders Defendants to advise immigrant visa petitioners, through electronic mail

or otherwise, of the status of immigrant visa applications submitted by 26

27 4

To the extent the Court deems it necessary, Plaintiffs and proposed class members meet the standards for

28 provisional class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Dkt. 3, is incorporated herein.

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 27

1

beneficiaries of their petitions.

2

Moreover, should the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolve the existing TRO in

3 Washington on a procedural or other non-merits basis, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court issue

4 an emergency temporary restraining order immediately providing the same relief listed above.

5

Notice to Defendants: On February 5, 2017, undersigned counsel notified Defendants

6 that Plaintiffs would file a motion for preliminary injunctive relief with a protective motion for

7 temporary restraining order on February 6, 2017. See Dkt. 10, Adams Decl. ¶¶3-5.5

8

II. ARGUMENT

9

A. STANDARD FOR OBTAINING PRELIMINARY RELIEF

10

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that: (1) she “is likely to

11 succeed on the merits,” (2) she “is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

12 relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in [her] favor,” and (4) that “an injunction is in the public
13 interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth
14 Circuit uses a balancing, or “sliding scale,” approach to evaluate requests for preliminary
15 injunctions, clarifying that, where the balance of hardships tips strongly in her favor, the moving
16 party may prevail as long as she shows that her claims raise serious legal questions. See, e.g.,
17 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). “Under this
18 approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing
19 of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Id. at 1131-32. Under any test,
20 Plaintiffs and the proposed class merit relief.6
21

22

B. PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS MEMBERS MERIT PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

23

1. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Raise Their Claims. 24

25

26

27 5 6

All declarations cited herein are being submitted concurrently with this motion. The standards for a TRO and a preliminary injunction are substantially the same. See, e.g., Stuhlbarg Int’l

28 Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 27

1

Plaintiffs satisfy all requirements necessary to demonstrate standing with respect to their

2 statutory and constitutional claims. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff

3 bringing suit must first show that:

4

(1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)

5

actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed

6

to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

7 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envlt. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).

8 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes suit if a plaintiff is “suffering legal wrong

9 because of agency action, or [was] adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the

10 meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Plaintiffs must show that the interests they seek

11 to protect are “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or

12 constitutional guarantee in question.” Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp,

13 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970).7

14

In a case challenging visa denials, the D.C. Circuit stated:

15

The Executive has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens, but

16

that discretion is not boundless. It extends only as far as the statutory authority conferred by Congress and may not transgress constitutional limitations. It is the

17

duty of the courts, in cases properly before them, to say where those statutory and

constitutional boundaries lie. 18
Abourezk v. Regan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d by an equally divided court, 484 19

U.S. 1 (1987). Here, Plaintiffs seek non-discriminatory and constitutional application of the 20

immigration laws. They, therefore, fall squarely within the zone of interests protected by the 21

22 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152(a)(1) (nondiscrimination); 1153

23 (allocation of immigrant visas); 1154 (procedure for granting immigrant status). See infra

24 Section II.B.2.a.8

25

26 7

The test “is not meant to be especially demanding,” and “there need be no indication of congressional

purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.” Clarke v. Secs. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 399- 400 (1987).

27 8

The Ninth Circuit also recognizes standing “when [a]suit challenges the authority of [a] consul to take or

fail to take an action” in a mandamus action. Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir. 1997) (suit by U.S. citizen

28 and his wife, in India, challenging failure to adjudicate visa application); see also Rivas v. Napolitano, 714 F.3d

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 6 of 27

1

Plaintiffs have standing to raise their statutory and constitutional claims irrespective of

2 their location inside or outside the United States. The Supreme Court has held that nothing in its

3 case law “categorically excludes” noncitizens in military custody outside the United States “from

4 the privilege of litigation in U.S. courts.” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 484 (2004) (internal
5 quotation marks omitted).9 In Rasul, the noncitizens were captured by U.S. military officers
6 while abroad in connection with hostilities. Even though they had no ties to the United States, 7
the Court found they had standing to seek review. Here, Plaintiffs and proposed class members 8
have significant ties to the United States, see Section II.B.3, infra, similarly entitling them to this 9
Court’s review. Moreover, to the extent that the Executive has plenary power over national 10
security and military affairs, Rasul stands for the proposition that the Constitution nevertheless 11
protects noncitizens outside the United States against any abuse of that plenary power by giving 12 13 them access to the courts. Indeed, Rasul suggests that any tension between the plenary power
14 doctrine and fundamental constitutional protections be resolved in favor of the latter; Rasul thus
15 reinforces Plaintiffs’ standing to raise, and be heard on, their claims that the EO on its face, and

16 as applied, unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion.

17

To the extent that only Plaintiffs Ahmed Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, Juweiya Abdiaziz,

18 and other U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) visa petitioner class members are

19 raising a due process claim, they have standing. As an initial matter, U.S. citizens and LPRs

20 have a constitutionally protected interest in marriage, family life, and child-rearing. See, e.g.,

21 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-

22 40 (1974); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality op.). The Ninth Circuit has 23

24 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (suit by immigrant visa petitioner and beneficiary challenging failure to adjudicate
motion to reconsider visa denial). Courts also recognize standing in challenges to denials of visa petitions brought

25 by petitioners and visa beneficiaries. See, e.g., Hoosier Care, Inc. v. Chertoff, 482 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2007) (suit by
U.S. employer to challenge denial of employment-based visa petition); Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.

26 2005) (suit by U.S. citizen and her husband challenging denial of adjustment of status); Grace Korean United
Methodist Church v. Chertoff, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Or. 2005) (suit by employer and potential employee).

27 9

See also Rasul, 542 U.S. at 484-85 (“The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to

nonresident aliens.”); id. at 481 (“[T]here is little reason to think that Congress intended the geographical coverage

28 of the [habeas] statute to vary depending on the detainee’s citizenship.”).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 7 of 27

1 confirmed that a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse has the right to bring a due process challenge to the

2 denial of a family member’s immigrant visa, rooted in the legal doctrine that “[f]reedom of
3 personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is, of course, one of the liberties protected
4 by the Due Process Clause.” Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008).10
5 Proposed class members that are U.S. based-employers similarly have constitutionally protected 6 interests.11 7
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kerry v. Din further illustrates the Court’s refusal to 8
close the courtroom doors to review of executive decisions affecting the constitutional rights of 9
citizens. In Din, a U.S. citizen wife challenged the State Department’s denial of an immigrant 10
visa to her husband. 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015). The Court issued a plurality opinion in which 11
Justice Kennedy’s concurrence controls.12 Justice Kennedy assumed that the visa denial 12 13 implicated Ms. Din’s constitutionally protected interests, and considered whether it was “facially 14 legitimate and bonafide.”13 In so doing, Justice Kennedy made two key holdings. First, he
15 found that the admission that Ms. Din’s husband worked as a secretary for the Taliban “even if
16 itself insufficient to support exclusion,” was enough of an individualized articulated facial
17 connection to terrorist activity to support a finding of inadmissibility. 135 S. Ct. at 1241

18 (Kennedy, J, concurring). Second, he found that Ms. Din had “not plausibly alleged with

19 sufficient particularity” bad faith on the part of the government. Id.

20

21 10

Furthermore, “the foremost policy underlying the granting of [immigrant preference] visas under our

22 immigration laws …[is] the reunification of families.” Lau v. Kiley, 563 F.2d 543, 547 (2d Cir. 1977); see also
Kaliski v. Dist. Dir. of Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 620 F.2d 214, 217 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[T]he humane

23 purpose [of the INA] is to reunite families.”).

11

See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 342 (2010) (First Amendment protection extends to

24 corporations); Minneapolis & S. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 28 (1889) (“[C]orporations can invoke the
benefits of provisions of the Constitution and laws which guarantee to persons the enjoyment of property, or afford

25 to them the means for its protection, or prohibit legislation injuriously affecting it.”).

12

See Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1171 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing plurality opinion in Din).

26 13

The Supreme Court has previously established this standard for reviewing visa petition denials. Kleindienst

v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972) (reviewing inadmissibility determination and waiver denial under facially

27 legitimate and bona fide standard). The Ninth Circuit has held “that the ‘facially legitimate and bona fide reason’
test is equivalent to the rational basis test typically applied in equal protection cases.” Ablang v. Reno, 52 F.3d 801,

28 804 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 8 of 27

1

Neither of the distinctions Justice Kennedy found critical in Din are present here. The

2 EO at issue in this case is not individualized with respect to any immigrant visa beneficiary or
3 petitioner; rather, it constitutes a generalized blanket denial of entries and immigrant visa
4 issuance. Such a categorical exclusion that lacks any facial connection to an immigrant visa
5 petitioner or beneficiary is sufficient to establish standing. In addition, unlike the petitioner in 6 Din, Plaintiffs have alleged that the EO is, at least in part, motivated by animus against a religion 7
and nationalities, which constitutes bad faith by the government. Thus, at a minimum, Plaintiffs 8
meet Justice Kennedy’s threshold test and, as such, have standing to seek this Court’s review of 9
their due process claim under a rational basis test (see supra n.13). 10
2. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Claims. 11
Plaintiffs and proposed class members can show a strong probability of success on the 12 13 merits of their claims. However, they need only show “serious questions going to the merits,” 14 which abound in this case because the balance of equities and public interest weigh heavily in
15 their favor and they show a likelihood of success of irreparable harm. Alliance for the Wild
16 Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. Under either inquiry, Plaintiffs and proposed class members can
17 demonstrate that Defendants’ EO and their subsequent application and enforcement of it fly

18 squarely in the face of the Constitution, the INA, and the APA.

19

a. Likelihood of Success on INA, APA, and Mandamus Claims

20

Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the EO—on its face and in its

21 application—violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) and the APA, and warrants mandamus relief.

22 First, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the EO violates § 1152(a)(1)(A), which
23 bars discrimination in visa issuance based on, inter alia, “nationality, place of birth, or place of
24 residence.” Section 3(c) of the EO violates the plain language of Section 1152(a)(1) because it 25 discriminates on the basis of nationality. See Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE 26
Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (“[T]he starting point for interpreting a statute is the 27
language of the statute itself.”). The EO abruptly, and without process, suspended entry of all 28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 9 of 27

1 immigrant visa holders from seven nations. Defendants additionally revoked the visas of all or

2 many of these visa holders. Finally, Defendants applied this provision to immigrant visa

3 applicants from these seven countries to justify suspending processing and issuance of immigrant
4 visas. See Adams Decl., Ex. A. The EO, and Defendants’ application of it, violates 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1152(a)(1)(A) because it cuts off entry, adjudication, and issuance of immigrant visas using a
6 nationality-based classification that Congress forbade. See Almero v. INS, 18 F.3d 757, 763 (9th 7
Cir. 1994) (“[T]he INS may not restrict eligibility to a smaller group of beneficiaries than 8
provided for by Congress”). 9
The EO also violates the congressional intent and the object and policy behind 10
§ 1152(a)(1)(A)’s enactment. See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 407 (1991) (“In 11
determining the meaning of the statute, we look not only to the particular statutory language, but 12 13 to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy.”) (internal quotation marks 14 omitted). In 1965, through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89–236,
15 79 Stat. 911 (1965), Congress enacted § 1152(a)(1) to root out the discriminatory national origins
16 quota system—in place between 1924 and 1965—that previously had restricted immigration on
17 the basis of national origin.14 See S. REP. 89-748, 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328, 3329 (1965)

18 (noting that the “primary objective” of the 1965 Act was “the abolishment of the national origins

19 quota system”); Fei Mei Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d 376, 377 (2d Cir. 2011) (summarizing the

20 history of the national origins quota system). In his signing statement, President Lyndon B.

21 Johnson wrote that the 1965 Act “abolished” the national origin system, which “violated the

22 basic principle of American democracy—the principle that values and rewards each man on the
23 basis of his merit as a man.” Lyndon B. Johnson, Remarks at the Signing of the Imm. Bill, 24 Remarks (Oct. 3, 1965), available at http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines25 johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration. 26

27

28 14

Section 1152(a)(1) is the predecessor statute to current § 1152(a)(1)(A) and contains identical language.

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 10 of 27

1

In 1995, the D.C. Circuit held that a State Department policy excluding Vietnamese

2 nationals from applying for visas in Hong Kong violated 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)’s prohibition

3 against nation origin discrimination, reasoning:

4

Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw

5

a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for

6

making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. . . . We agree with

appellants’ interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more

7

explicit language. . . . We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own

8

terms provides no exceptions or qualifications . . . . Congress has unambiguously

directed that no nationality-based discrimination shall occur.

9 Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,

10 45 F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1995) abrogated on other grounds, Legal Assistance for Vietnamese

11 Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 104 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
12 Accord Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. 442, 453 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (“[8 U.S.C.
13 § 1152(a)(1)(A)] manifested Congressional recognition that the maturing attitudes of our nation
14
made discrimination on [the listed] bases improper.”). Subsequently, Congress amended 15

16 § 1152(a)(1); it retained the existing non-discrimination mandate and moved it to newly-created

17 subsection (A), and it enacted new subsection (B) which states that nothing in paragraph (A)

18 limits the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures or location of immigrant

19 visa processing. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1). Consequently, the D.C. Circuit, in light of

20 § 1152(a)(1)(B), upheld the State Department’s policy as it applied only to the location of visa

21 processing. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, 104 F.3d at 1352-53.

22

Here, Plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. The

23 plain language of the EO violates § 1152(a)(1)(A) by immediately banning the entry of

24 immigrants from the seven targeted countries based upon their nationality. A ban on entry is

25 equally a ban on visa issuance (as evidenced by Defendants’ interpretation and application of

26 Section 3 of the EO). An immigrant visa issues only after the State Department, acting in

27 concert with the Department of Homeland Security and other security offices of the U.S.

28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 11 of 27

1 government, determines that an eligible individual is admissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. 8

2 U.S.C. § 1201(g)(3) (providing that no visa shall be issued if “the consular officer knows or has

3 reason to believe that such [noncitizen] is ineligible to receive a visa […] under [§ 1182], or any

4 other provision of law”). Upon entry into the United States, an immigrant visa holder is

5 inspected and admitted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and then becomes a lawful

6 permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (defining “admission” and “admitted”); 8

7 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20) (defining “lawfully admitted for permanent residence”).

8

Moreover, because the wholesale suspension of visa processing based upon the

9 nationality of the applicant results in the suspension of visa issuance, it too runs afoul of
10 § 1152(a)(1)(A). The suspension of visa processing based upon nationality is not permitted
11 under § 1152(a)(1)(B), both because the EO represents the President’s policy (not the State
12 Department’s, although the latter is implementing it), and because a blanket suspension of visa 13 processing for all nationals of these countries is not a “determ[ination about] the procedures” to 14
be followed or the location of visa processing. 15
Defendant Trump issued the EO purportedly pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which grants 16
the Executive broad authority to suspend the entry of either “any [individual] aliens” or “any 17
class of aliens” into the United States. However, the President’s authority under § 1182(f) is 18
confined by statutory and constitutional limits. Cardinal rules of statutory construction 19
demonstrate that § 1182(f) cannot supersede the limitations created by Congress in 8 U.S.C. 20 21 § 1152(a)(1)(A). First, the plain language of the statute cannot be construed to authorize a 22 categorical suspension of all “aliens” or “nationals” covered by the nondiscrimination provision
23 in § 1152(a)(1)(A); rather, in limiting that authority to “any alien” in the singular or “any class of
24 aliens,” the statute distinguishes between individuals or a subset of individuals, as compared to
25 all individuals of a particular nationality.15 Second, at the time Congress enacted § 1152(a), it is

26 presumed to have been aware of the authority conferred to the President in § 1182(f). See

27

28 15

See Consumer Product Safety Commission, 447 U.S. at 108.

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 12 of 27

1 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 581 (1978) (“Congress normally can be presumed to have had

2 knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the
3 new statute.”). Thus, as it was aware of the President’s authority under § 1182(f), Congress
4 presumably intended § 1152(a)(1)(A) to act as a limit on that authority. Third, § 1152(a)(1)(A)
5 is narrower in scope than § 1182(f), and the more specific provision must be given effect. See 6 Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 524 (1989) (“A general statutory rule usually 7
does not govern unless there is no more specific rule.”). Pursuant to § 1152(a)(1)(A), the 8
President can no more suspend entry of immigrant visas for individuals from the targeted seven 9
countries than he can suspend issuance of immigrant visas to all female or all non-Caucasian 10
applicants.16 11
In addition, the plain language of, and congressional intent in enacting, 8 U.S.C. 12 13 § 1187(a)(12) do not sanction discrimination in issuing immigrant visas based on national origin. 14 That statute focuses on which countries may qualify for the “visa waiver” program, a program 15 that allows nationals of certain countries to enter the United States without a nonimmigrant visa.
16 By its very terms, that section is limited to nonimmigrant (i.e., temporary) visas, not immigrant
17 (i.e., permanent) visas, which are at issue here. Thus, there is no inconsistency between

18 § 1152(a)(1)(A) and § 1187(a)(12). Moreover, nationals who benefit from the visa waiver

19 program do not submit any visa application and, accordingly, are not screened and vetted before

20 admission to the United States. This contrasts sharply with immigrant visas for which all

21

22 16

Notably, not a single President has invoked § 1182(f) to authorize such a broad and discriminatory

23 nationality-based suspension of entry. The closest analogue to the EO was President Reagan’s 1986 temporary
suspension of Cuban immigration in response to a diplomatic dispute with the Cuban government. Proclamation

24 5517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30470 (1986). That proclamation, however, was never challenged as violating § 1152(a)(1)(A)
and it included, inter alia, a carve out for immediate relative visa petitions. Moreover, although previous presidents

25 have invoked § 1182(f) in over forty instances, these proclamations have been narrowly tailored to address specific
individuals whose entry would be inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy interests. See, e.g., Proclamation 5887, 53

26 Fed. Reg. 43184 (1988) (suspending the entry of officers of the Nicaraguan government or the Sandinista National
Liberation Front); Executive Order 13694, 80 Fed. Reg. 18077 (2015) (suspending the entry of persons determined

27 to have engaged in “significant malicious cyber-enabled activities”); see also 9 Foreign Affairs Manual 302.14-
3(B)(1) (noting that presidents have invoked § 1182(f) to “bar entry based on affiliation” or to “suspend the entry of

28 persons based on objectionable conduct”).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 13 of 27

1 applicants are thoroughly screened and passed through several security and medical clearance

2 processes before being approved to seek entry.

3

Second, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that nationality-based

4 classifications, interpretations, and actions violate the APA’s prohibition against unlawful and

5 unconstitutional government conduct. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D). Defendants’ failure to

6 comply with the law creates a “legal wrong” and an agency action that “adversely affected or

7 aggrieved” Plaintiffs and proposed class members, which entitles them to relief under the APA.

8 5 U.S.C. § 702. Not only is Defendants’ ongoing flouting of § 1152(a)(1)(A) “not in accordance
9 with law,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction,” and “without observance of procedure required
10 by law,” it is “contrary to constitutional right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D); see infra Sections
11

II.B.2.b and c. 12

13

Third, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their request for mandamus relief under 28

14 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is warranted if “(1) the individual’s claim is clear and certain;

15 (2) the official’s duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly proscribed as to be free

16 from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Patel, 134 F.3d at 931. Plaintiffs

17 have a clear claim to nondiscriminatory adjudication and issuance of their immigrant visas;

18 Defendants’ duties to adjudicate, issue, and honor immigrant visas are plainly set forth

19 throughout the INA and implementing regulations, and absent intervention by a federal court,

20 Plaintiffs and class members will remain in legal limbo, for 90 days at a minimum, and

21 potentially indefinitely. See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977, 8978.

22

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[m]andamus may not be used to instruct an official how

23 to exercise discretion unless that official has ignored or violated ‘statutory or regulatory

24 standards delimiting the scope or manner in which such discretion can be exercised.’” Silveyra
25 v. Moschorack, 989 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Carpet Linoleum and Resilent Tile 26
Layers v. Brown, 656 F.2d 564, 566 (10th Cir. 1981)). In such an event, “mandamus is 27
appropriate.” Id. at 1014. As discussed above, Defendants have clearly exceeded the scope of 28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 14 of 27

1 their discretionary authority to determine procedures and locations for the processing of

2 immigrant visas under 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(B) and to suspend entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).

3

Thus, Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to succeed in their INA, APA, and

4 mandamus claims.

5

b. Likelihood of Success on The Equal Protection Claim

6

Plaintiffs also are likely to succeed on their claim that the EO violates the guarantee of

7 equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Executive orders, like

8 other governmental actions, are subject to constitutional limits. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet and
9 Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587-89 (1952) (holding that the President acted without
10 constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take
11

possession of and operate most of the nation’s steel mills); Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & 12

13 Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (analyzing whether an executive order violated plaintiffs’

14 First Amendment rights); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (President, as head of the

15 executive branch of government, is not above the law). Noncitizens, including those who are

16 unlawfully present in the United States, “com[e] within the ambit of the equal protection

17 component of the Due Process Clause.” Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 974

18 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff and proposed class member petitioners consist of U.S. citizens and

19 LPRs, all who are entitled to the full panoply of the Fifth Amendment’s protections. Similarly,

20 proposed class members that are U.S. based-employers similarly have constitutionally protected

21 interests. See supra n. 11.

22

Moreover, even Plaintiffs and proposed class members who are outside of the United

23 States may challenge an order that blatantly discriminates against them on the basis of national

24 origin and religion. Although both Congress and the Executive have plenary power over
25 immigration, neither branch may execute this power in violation of the Constitution. See, e.g., 26
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (“[The] ‘plenary power’ to create immigration law 27
… is subject to important constitutional limitations”); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 941 (1983) 28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 15 of 27

1 (plenary authority may not be exercised in a way that “offend[s] some other constitutional

2 restriction”) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 132 (1976)). Thus, the plenary power does
3 not support the assertion that noncitizens outside of the United States have no constitutional
4 rights, nor does it eliminate the ability to bring a challenge against the government for
5 discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, religion and national origin, where such a policy would 6 clearly be unconstitutional if applied to persons within the United States. 7
Accordingly, this Court should apply strict scrutiny to Section 3(c) of the EO, which 8
discriminates on the basis of both national origin and religion. See, e.g., Ball v. Massanari, 254 9
F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that discrimination based on a suspect class, such as 10
national origin or religion, is subject to strict scrutiny); Christian Sci. Reading Room Jointly 11
Maintained v. City of San Francisco, 784 F.2d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that “an 12 13 individual religion meets the requirements for treatment as a suspect class”); see also Hassan v. 14 City of New York, 804 F.3d 277, 301 (3d Cir. 2015) (“intentional discrimination based on
15 religious affiliation must survive heightened equal protection review”). To prevail, Plaintiffs
16 must show that the challenged action is either discriminatory on its face or that discriminatory
17 animus against a protected class was a “motivating factor.” Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 977

18 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted).

19

On its face, the EO targets visa applicants and visa holders on the basis of their

20 nationality. Moreover, President Trump’s animus towards Muslims is made clear by his own

21 statements, and those of his advisor, with regard to imposing a “Muslim ban.” See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 48-

22 50. Although the EO does not mention Muslims explicitly, advisors to the President have
23 confirmed it was intended to ban Muslims. Dkt. 1 ¶49 (noting the statement of Rudolph Giuliani
24 that President-Elect Trump asked him to write a “legal” ban on Muslims). Indeed, President 25 Trump admitted that the EO was intended to prioritize Christian refugees. Daniel Burke, Trump 26
says US will prioritize Christian refugees, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017), available at 27
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/; Dkt. 1 ¶50. President 28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 16 of 27

1 Trump’s animus towards countries included in the ban is similarly well-documented.17 Because

2 no compelling government interest is served by such discriminatory motives, Plaintiffs are likely
3 to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim. Further, religious discrimination or
4 discrimination on the basis of national origin, even in the name of national security, is an equal
5 protection violation. Hassan, 804 F.3d at 298 (blanket surveillance of Muslims violates equal 6 protection even if the NYPD was subjectively motivated by “a legitimate law-enforcement 7
purpose”). 8
Even if the Court were to apply a rational basis analysis, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail. 9
See, e.g., Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001) (evaluating whether “‘[l]ine-drawing’ 10
decisions made by . . . the President in the context of immigration and naturalization . . . are 11
rationally related to a legitimate government purpose”). Where a government’s proposed 12 13 solution to a problem is discrimination against a disfavored class and all evidence shows that 14 such a solution is “ludicrously ineffectual,” the government has not acted rationally. Plyer v.
15 Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 (1982) (“[W]e think it clear that ‘[charging] tuition to undocumented
16 children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration’”)
17 (internal citation omitted).

18

In this case, the EO’s discriminatory response to the alleged problem of terrorist entry to

19 the United States is “ludicrously ineffectual.” In the last 30 years, no individual from the seven

20 affected countries has killed an American in a terrorist attack in the United States. Alex

21 Nowsrasteh, Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security”

22
23 17 See, e.g., Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Mar. 24, 2016, 10:55 AM),
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/713031504415338497 (“Europe and the U.S. must immediately stop
24 taking in people from Syria. This will be the destruction of civilization as we know it! So sad!”); Donald Trump
(@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct. 24, 2016, 7:00 AM),
25 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/790523240351498241 (“...Crooked Hillary wants to take in as many
Syrians as possible. We cannot let this happen - ISIS!”); Ben Kamisar, Trump: I would shoot confrontational
26 Iranian ships, THE HILL (Sept. 9, 2016), http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295273-trump-i-
would-shoot-at-confrontational-iranian-ships (“With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little
27 boats and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the
water”); Ben Jacobs & Alan Yuhas, Somali migrants are 'disaster' for Minnesota, says Donald Trump, THE
28 GUARDIAN (Nov. 7, 2016).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 17 of 27

1 Reasons, CATO INSTITUTE (Jan. 26, 2017), https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-

2 order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons. The EO’s blanket ban on all immigration by
3 nationals of these seven predominantly Muslim nations, including children of U.S. citizen and
4 lawful permanent residents who already reside in the United States, in the name of baring “those
5 who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred” or “would oppress Americans,” EO § 1, 82 Fed. Reg. 6 8977, is so over-inclusive as to be incoherent. See also, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶3, 7 (ban affects U.S. 7
citizen’s son who is a Somali national by law but has never lived in Somalia). Because any 8
justification for the EO is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, Plaintiffs are 9
likely to prevail. 10
c. Likelihood of Success on Due Process Claim 11
Plaintiffs also are likely to succeed on their claims that Defendants’ unlawful actions 12 13 deprive Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, and Ahmed Ali and other U.S. citizen and LPR 14 visa petitioners of their constitutionally protected liberty interests. See supra Section II.A.1. The
15 Fifth Amendment protects people from deprivations of liberty interests absent due process of
16 law. U.S. Const. amend. V. At a minimum, it protects against arbitrary government action,
17 including actions that do not adhere to the constraints that Congress has imposed, that would

18 infringe upon the exercise of protected liberty interests. See, e.g., Del Monte Dunes v. Monterey,

19 920 F.2d 1496, 1508 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We cannot say at this stage of the proceeding that the

20 actions of the city council, . . . were not arbitrary and irrational and, thus, a violation of

21 appellants’ substantive due process rights.”). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a U.S.

22 citizen or LPR spouse has the right to bring a due process challenge to the denial of a family

23 member’s visa. See, e.g., Bustamante, 531 F.3d at 1062 (“Freedom of personal choice in matters

24 of marriage and family life is, of course, one of the liberties protected by the Due Process

25 Clause.”).

26

Moreover, Congress has made clear that Plaintiff and proposed class member

27 beneficiaries outside the country are entitled to have their visas adjudicated and issued in a

28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 16

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 18 of 27

1 manner that does not discriminate based upon national origin or country of birth. 8 U.S.C.

2 § 1152(a)(1)(A). While the Supreme Court emphasized that persons denied entry into the United

3 States are entitled only to limited review, such actions must still comport with the Constitution

4 and whatever procedural due process Congress has provided. See Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338

5 U.S. 537, 544 (1950) (“Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as

6 far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”). In the instant case, Congress has established an

7 elaborate system for issuing visas, and explicitly barred the Executive from discriminating based

8 on national origin or country of birth when administering that system. Cf. Din, 135 S. Ct. at

9 2136 (J. Scalia, announcing judgment of the court in a plurality opinion) (recognizing that at a

10 minimum “procedural due process rights attach to liberty interests that either are (1) created by

11 nonconstitutional law, such as a statute”).

12

Here, Defendants’ actions in suspending the processing of immigrant visas and in

13 denying the validity of existing immigrant visas, taken pursuant to the EO, deprive U.S. citizens
14 and lawful permanent resident visa petitioners of protected liberty interests in their family lives,
15 marriages, and ability to raise their children, without due process. Defendants’ abrupt change of
16 course, without any notice to affected individuals or evidence of the need to categorically bar all 17 visa applicants from the designated countries, including young children whose parents are 18
already living in the United States, were completely arbitrary. See, e.g., A. Ali Decl. ¶¶19-21 19
(describing Plaintiff E.A. receiving a validly issued immigrant visa on January 26, 2017 and 20
arriving at the airport on January 28, 2017 to discover, with no notice, that E.A. “was not 21
permitted [to] board the flight due to the U.S. President’s Executive Order”); Farahani Decl. ¶¶822
11 (parents were en route to U.S. when EO took effect and were sent back without adequate 23 24 explanation at their connection); Elias Decl. ¶¶4-5 (U.S. citizen’s wife was issued visa on 25 January 20 but not allowed to board flight for U.S. on January 29, without prior notice); Edward
26 Decl. ¶¶6-8 (U.S. citizen’s husband arrived at airport only to be denied admission and was not
27 even allowed to contact his counsel or wife). Such actions fly in the face of due process. Shanks

28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 19 of 27

1 v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (suggesting that conduct may be

2 “constitutionally arbitrary” where there is evidence “of a sudden change in course, malice, bias,

3 [or] pretext”).18

4

3. Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members Have Suffered, and Will Continue to

5

Suffer, Irreparable Harm Absent This Court’s Intervention.

6

Plaintiffs and proposed class members face more than simply the “possibility of

7 irreparable harm.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Rather, they are able to demonstrate the likelihood of

8 immediate, concrete, irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. See Leiva-Perez v.

9 Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that “separation from family members,

10 medical needs, and potential economic hardship” are important irreparable harm factors)

11 (internal quotation marks omitted); Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)

12 (stating that “the deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable

13 injury.”) (quotation marks omitted); see also 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary

14 Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedures § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995) (“When an alleged deprivation

15 of a constitutional right is involved most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury

16 is necessary.”).19

17

Plaintiffs and proposed class members are mothers and fathers eager to bring their

18 children to live with them in the United States. See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶12; Niknejad Decl. ¶¶7-9;
19 Abdi Decl. ¶3; A. Ali Decl. ¶2; Dahman Decl. ¶¶17-18; Uysal-Ferre Decl. ¶14. They are
20

21 18

For the same reasons set forth in this section, Plaintiffs Dahman, G.E., Ms. Ali, and A.F.A, and proposed

22 class members with immigrant visa applications merit a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from again
suspending processing and/or issuance of immigrant visas pursuant to the EO. For example, Defendant DOS

23 explicitly had rejected the possibility of scheduling immigrant visa interviews for class members, even in emergency
situations, shortly after the EO was issued. See Adams Decl., Ex. A at 1 (stating, in a DOS announcement removed

24 after the TRO in Washington issued, “Q: I have an emergency. Can I request an expedited appointment? A: No. The
Department of State may not conduct immigrant visa interviews for any persons who are nationals of Syria, Iraq,

25 Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen at this time.”). Absent a preliminary injunction on this aspect of
Defendants’ possible implementation of the EO, there is nothing to prevent Defendants from engaging in this

26 unlawful behavior again.

19

Since this Court issued the Washington TRO, some Plaintiffs, proposed class members, and declarants have

27 been able to enter the United States with their valid immigrant visas. However, should an appellate court dissolve
the existing TRO in Washington or should this Court fail to extend that TRO, the EO will again slam a door shut on

28 remaining Plaintiffs and proposed class members, who will continue to face the irreparable harm outlined here.

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 18

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 20 of 27

1 employers in competitive environment and professionals sought by U.S. companies. See

2 Updahye Decl. ¶¶4, 8; Siskind Decl. ¶¶11-12. See also, e.g., Washington, 2:17-cv-141-JLR, Dkt.

3 6 ¶11; id. Dkt. 7 ¶21; id. Dkt. 17-5 ¶8. They are sons and daughters worried about the well-

4 being of their elderly parents. See, e.g., Safari Decl. ¶2; Tahhan Decl. ¶¶3-5; Farahani Decl. ¶2.

5 They are spouses impatient to start living together as a family after having put their lives on hold

6 while waiting for years to be reunited. See, e.g., Adam Decl. ¶3; Edward Decl. ¶2; Hussain Decl.

7 ¶3; Abdi Decl. ¶3; Sobhani Decl. ¶¶7, 11. Many of these plaintiffs and putative class members

8 have already been apart for many years. See, e.g., Dahman Decl. ¶6 (mother who has not seen
9 her son in more than four years); Farahani Decl. ¶2 (son who has only seen his parents twice
10 since 2010). And some class members have never had the opportunity to meet each other. See
11

Abdi Decl. ¶3 (father has yet to meet his second son). 12

13

Many of these proposed class members have already been greatly harmed by the EO.

14 They have incurred significant expenses attempting to rebook travel or secure lodging after being

15 left stranded in unfamiliar countries. See, e.g., Safari Decl. ¶¶11-12; Tahhan Decl. ¶6; Abdi

16 Decl. ¶7; cf. Updahye Decl. ¶7. Named Plaintiff Ahmed Ali found himself having to extend his

17 leave of absence from work in order to remain with his 12-year-old daughter, who was not

18 permitted to board the plane, in Djibouti until they determined what to do—putting the financial

19 stability of his whole family at risk, as he is the sole breadwinner. A. Ali Decl. ¶23-24.

20 Plaintiffs and proposed class members have also suffered tremendous stress and emotional

21 trauma arising not only from disappointment and uncertainty in the wake of the EO, but also

22 from their concerns for the well-being and safety of their family members. See, e.g., Niknejad
23 Decl. ¶7 (describing feeling “devastated”); Adam Decl. ¶8 (detailing inability to focus and
24 “trouble sleeping”); Edward Decl. ¶7 (reporting “great distress”); Abdi Decl. ¶7 (characterizing 25 the situation as “heartbreaking”); Ali ¶25 (noting that “[t]he uncertainty of our situation is very 26
stressful”); Farahani Decl. ¶11 (remarking the day his father was not allowed to board his 27
connecting flight and was detained for about 18 hours was “the worst day of [his father’s] life” 28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 19

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 21 of 27

1 and “one of my worst days too”); Sobhani Decl. ¶¶7-9 (declaring he felt “completely helpless

2 with no recourse for relief”). Many more have been shaken and offended to their core by the
3 discriminatory treatment they and their family members experienced. See, e.g., Farahani Decl.
4 ¶13 (“I feel . . . like a second class citizen”); Niknejad Decl. ¶10 (“I . . . cannot understand why
5 this country I love is doing this to me and my family.”); Adam Decl. ¶8 (“[A]s a citizen, I am 6 concern[ed] about my constitutional rights. . .”); Abdi Decl. ¶9 (“Asking why I want my family 7
with me is very silly and shameful.”); Uysal-Ferre Decl. ¶13 (“How do you tell a 7-year-old little 8
boy that, ‘no, you cannot come to live with your father, little sister and mother because you have 9
a passport of a certain country?’”). 10
Absent a grant of preliminary relief, the irreparable harm putative class members have 11
experienced will only increase. The financial burden on many class members will increase as 12 13 they are forced to continue to maintain multiple households. See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶11; Adam 14 Decl. ¶9. Others will be deprived of academic and professional opportunities to which they
15 would have access in the United States. See Omar Decl. ¶10 (noting that delay “would interfere
16 with his [son’s] ability to attend a school in the United States and build a career”). See also, e.g.,
17 Niknejad Decl. ¶8; Hussain Decl. ¶7; Upadhye Decl. ¶8; Dahman Decl. ¶10. Meanwhile, delay

18 resulting from the EO would cause others to have to start the immigrant visa petition process

19 again. The son of class member Mohamed Omar, for example, would have to start the visa

20 application process anew as a member of a different visa category if his currently issued

21 immigrant visa is revoked or not accepted pursuant to the EO. It would “likely take over six

22 years before he would be able to obtain a new immigrant visa”—on top of the more than four

23 years he has already waited to be reunited with his father. Omar Decl. ¶¶5, 10.

24

Others are being deprived of needed medical care or other assistance to which they would

25 have access in the United States. See, e.g., Tahhan Decl. ¶5 (concerned because his 76 and 70-

26 year-old parents are in Syria alone without any of their children to care for them); Farahani Decl.
27 ¶¶2-3 (elderly parents are both sick, and in Los Angeles they would have the care of two of their
28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 20

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 22 of 27

1 children). Many others will be forced to return to, or continue living in, areas plagued by civil

2 strife, war, and similar dangers. See, e.g., Tahhan Decl. ¶¶5,7 (noting that even clean drinking

3 water is hard to come by in Syria); Omar Decl. ¶ 7-9 (explaining that his son, a Somali national

4 who has never lived in Somalia, has no safe place to go); Adam Decl. ¶8 (expressing concern for
5 his wife, who lives alone in Sudan); Edward Decl. ¶4 (highlighting “serious and life threatening
6 problems” client would face in Somalia); A. Ali Decl. ¶25 (describing the situation in Yemen as 7
“extraordinarily dangerous”); Dahman Decl. ¶¶10, 15 (expressing concern for her son’s safety 8
the longer he remains in Syria, because the “situation in Syria is so unstable that my son has even 9
been kidnapped”). As one class member—a Pakistani citizen who is an LPR and petitioned for 10
his Iranian wife—explained, the United States is the only place where his family can live safely. 11
He “could not own property or hold civil rights of any kind in Iran,” because he is not an Iranian 12 13 citizen, and living in Pakistan presents significant risks, as members of his family have been
14 threatened there due to their religion. Hussain Decl. ¶7. The stress and consternation Plaintiffs
15 and putative class members are experiencing because their family members are in harms’ way

16 also constitute concrete irreparable harm. See, e.g., Farahani Decl. ¶12; Dahman Decl. ¶¶16-17.

17

Finally, absent preliminary relief, plaintiffs and prospective class members will suffer

18 certain irreparable harm in the form of family separation. Many class members face the prospect

19 of a prolonged, potentially indefinite separation, with all its attendant challenges. See, e.g.,

20 Omar Decl. ¶¶11-12; Niknejad Decl. ¶10; Adam Decl. ¶¶3, 10; Hussain Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 7. Such

21 separation takes an emotional toll on these putative class members, all the more so when there

22 are no clear answers as to when it will end. See, e.g., Safari Decl. ¶13 (stating that grandparents
23 will miss the birth of their grandchild); Adam Decl. ¶8 (expressing hope that his “wife could
24 attend th[e] lifetime opportunity” of his upcoming graduation); Farahani Decl. ¶6 (explaining he 25 had planned to “celebrate Nowruz, the Persian New Year, together as a family”); Abdi Decl. ¶3 26
(explaining that he missed birth of his son). For those with elderly parents or family members in 27
dangerous locations, there looms the specter of a permanent, final separation. See, e.g., Tahhan 28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 21

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 23 of 27

1 Decl. ¶7 (“I am afraid that this Executive Order will prevent me from seeing my [Syrian] parents

2 for the rest of my life.”); Farahani Decl. ¶10 (“I had thought I was going to be reunited with my

3 parents. Instead, I wasn’t sure we would be together again.”); Dahman Decl. ¶ 16 (explaining

4 that “everyday” she lives with the fear of “not knowing if [she] will ever see [her] child again”).

5

It is well recognized that the types of harm Plaintiffs and putative class members are

6 experiencing and will continue to experience are of an irreparable nature so as to warrant a grant
7 of preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of California, 840
8 F.2d 701, 709-10 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that “emotional and psychological” injury, including
9 injury arising from discriminatory treatment, can constitute irreparable harm); Arizona Dream
10 Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that “intangible injuries
11 . . . [which] generally lack an adequate legal remedy” and loss of opportunity to pursue
12
13 professional advancement can constitute irreparable harm). This Court has already recognized

14 that adverse effects on “employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom of

15 travel” are factors relevant to the question of whether “immediate and irreparable injury” is

16 probable. Washington, 2:17-cv-141-JLR, Dkt. 52 at 4 (TRO). Preliminary injunctive relief is 17 thus appropriate.20

18

4. The Public Interest and Balance of Equities Weigh Heavily in Favor of

19

Granting Injunctive Relief.

20

The public interest and balance of equities factors “merge” when, as in this case, the

21 government is a party. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014).

22 Regardless, both factors strongly favor Plaintiffs and proposed class members. If the Court does

23

24 20

Plaintiffs Dahman, G.E., Ms. Ali, and A.F.A, and proposed class members with immigrant visa

applications similarly would face irreparable harm due to Defendants’ decision to suspend the processing and/or

25 issuance of immigrant visas absent preliminary relief. See, e.g., Niknejad Decl. ¶ 9 (61-year-old LPR father facing
potentially indefinite separation from his daughter); Adam Decl. ¶6 (U.S. citizen facing additional delays in

26 adjudication of his wife’s immigrant visa after two and a half years of waiting); Hussain Decl. ¶6 (LPR being
prevented from reuniting with his wife and seven-month-old baby); Abdi Decl. ¶6 (U.S. citizen facing additional

27 delays in being reunited with his two-year-old son due to delays in the scheduling of consular interviews; Dahman
Decl. ¶¶16-18 (LPR mother facing potentially indefinite separation from son in war-torn Syria); Uysal-Ferre Decl.

28 ¶13-14 (U.S. citizen facing uncertain separation from seven-year-old son in Somalia).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 22

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 24 of 27

1 not provide immediate injunctive relief, Plaintiffs and the proposed class will continue to suffer

2 irreparable harm, including the ongoing violation of their statutory and constitutional rights,
3 separation from their families, emotional trauma, untenable financial burdens, and deprivation of
4 medical and familial care. See supra Section II.B.3. Furthermore, the EO includes provisions
5 that would extend the unlawful visa processing and issuance ban under certain circumstances, 6 potentially prolonging the separation of these families indefinitely. 82 Fed. Reg. 8977, 8978 7
§ 3(e) (permitting indefinite extension if the Secretary determines that an affected country does 8
not share sufficient data with the United States).21 9
What Plaintiffs and class members seek—that Defendants follow the lawful visa 10
adjudication and issuance process and permit entry into the United States for those with validly 11
approved for immigrant visas—would cause no countervailing harm whatsoever; indeed, it 12 13 would be in the public interest. Defendants already have put immigrant visa holders in the 14 proposed class through extensive security screening and found each to be admissible to the
15 United States. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 ¶33-34; Edward Decl. ¶¶4-5; Niknejad Decl. ¶4. As discussed
16 supra at Section II.B.2.b, the ban on entry impacting Plaintiffs and class members has no
17 legitimate purpose; there is simply no evidence that it has any bearing on national security.

18

Instead of protecting the United States, the EO led Defendants to unlawfully separate

19 families and unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of religion and national origin. See

20 supra Section II.B.2.b. The Ninth Circuit “agree[s] . . . that it is always in the public interest to

21 prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002 (quotation

22 omitted); see also Small v. Avanti Health Sys., LLC, 661 F.3d 1180, 1197 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he 23 public interest favors applying federal law correctly.”); Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 24 1146 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he public interest . . . benefits from a preliminary injunction that 25

26 21

See also Adams Decl., Ex. A at 1 (evidencing that, in an announcement removed after the TRO in

27 Washington issued, DOS cancelled all visa interviews and advised individuals not to schedule medical
examinations, which have a 6-month expiration date, because “we cannot predict when your visa interview will be

28 rescheduled”).

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 23

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 25 of 27

1 ensures that federal statutes are construed and implemented in a manner that avoids serious

2 constitutional concerns.”).

3

Thus, Plaintiffs and the proposed class respectfully submit that the balance of equities

4 and public interest tip sharply in their favor. As such, they meet the standard for obtaining a

5 preliminary injunctive relief.22

6

III. CONCLUSION

7 Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have demonstrated that they satisfy the
8 required criteria for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court should grant this motion.
9

10 Dated this 6th day of February, 2017.

11 s/Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
12

Mary Kenney, pro hac vice admission forthcoming

13 s/Glenda Aldana Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac vice admission forthcoming

14 46987

15 Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826,

Melissa Crow, pro hac vice admission forthcoming

16 application for admission pending

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

17 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200

615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 18 98104 (206) 957-8611

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 507-7512

19 (206) 587-4025 (fax)

(202) 742-5619 (fax)

20 Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice admission forthcoming
21

22 Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice admission forthcoming
23

24

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

25 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108
26

27 22

For the same reasons discussed in this section, the public interest and balance of equities factors strongly

28 favor Plaintiffs Dahman, G.E., Ms. Ali, and A.F.A, and proposed class members with immigrant visa applications.

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 24

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 26 of 27

1

(617) 227-9727 (617) 227-5495 (fax)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 27 of 27

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I Matt Adams, hereby certify that on February 6, 2017, I arranged for electronic filing of

3 the foregoing motion and all supporting declarations with the Clerk of the Court using the

4 CM/ECF system. I also emailed these documents to Defendants’ counsel, Stacey I. Young, at

5 Stacey.Young@usdoj.gov. Lastly, I arranged for mailing of these documents by U.S. first class

6 mail, postage prepaid, to:

7 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

of America 8 United States Attorney’s Office

SERVICES Office of the General Counsel

9

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271

United States Department of Homeland Security

10

Washington, DC 20528

11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Executive Office
12 Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600 600 19th Street NW
13 Washington, DC 20522
14
15 Rex W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State The Executive Office
16 Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600 600 19th Street NW
17 Washington, DC 20522
18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 19 SECURITY
Office of the General Counsel 20 Washington, DC 20528
21

Lori SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS Office of the General Counsel United States Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20511
Michael DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National Intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20511

22 John F. KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security 23 Office of the General Counsel
United States Department of Homeland Security 24 Washington, DC 20528

25 Executed in Seattle, Washington, on February 6, 2017.
26 s/ Matt Adams
27 Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

28

PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 26

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR 11 Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Ahmed

12 Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals and on
13 behalf of others similarly situated,

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

14

Plaintiffs,

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15 v.

16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 17 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
Rex W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 18 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 19 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 20 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 21 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 22 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting
Director of National Intelligence,
23
Defendants.
24
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, the parties’
25
briefing, and oral argument, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for
26
preliminary injunctive relief in this case. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

1
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35
2
(9th Cir. 2011).
3
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pending a trial on the merits, Defendants and
4
all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert
5
of participation with them are:
6

7

1. Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order 13769 (EO),

in so far as it precludes persons approved for immigrant visas from boarding

8

flights to the United States and entering the country as lawful permanent

residents;

9

2. Enjoined and restrained from applying Section 3 of the EO to suspend the

10

processing and/or issuance of immigrant visas to Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali

and A.F.A., Reema Khaled Dahman and G.E., and all other proposed class

11

members who have filed visa petitions and the beneficiaries of those visa petitions

who are applying for immigrant visas;

12

3. Enjoined and restrained from revoking immigrant visas based on Section 3 of the

13

EO;

4. Ordered to reinstate and, where necessary, reissue, the immigrant visas of all

14

nationals from the seven countries that were revoked pursuant to the issuance of

the EO, without the need for the foreign national to reapply for a visa;

15

5. Ordered to issue transportation letters, where necessary, to all nationals from the

16

seven countries with validly issued immigrant visas, including all individuals

whose visas are reinstated pursuant to #4 above; and

17

6. Ordered to advise immigrant visa petitioners, through electronic mail or

otherwise, of the status of immigrant visa applications submitted by beneficiaries

18

of their petitions.

19
This preliminary injunction is granted on a nationwide basis.
20
This Court has exercised its discretion to determine that no bond shall be required and
21
that this Order shall be effective immediately.
22

23
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, the parties’
24
briefing, and oral argument, if any, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for
25
preliminary injunctive relief in this case. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
26
27 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35
28 (9th Cir. 2011). The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the standard for issuing a

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

1
preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345,
2
1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
3
(9th Cir. 2001).
4
Accordingly, if prior to adjudication of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the
5
temporary restraining order this Court entered on February 3, 2017 in the related case of
6
Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-141-JLR, Dkt. 52, is dissolved for a reason other than a
7
determination with respect to the merits of the challenge, this Court hereby ORDERS a
8
9 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER providing that Defendants and all their respective
10 officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert of participation
11 with them are immediately:

12

1. Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order 13769 (EO),

in so far as it precludes persons approved for immigrant visas from boarding

13

flights to the United States and entering the country as lawful permanent

14

residents;

2. Enjoined and restrained from applying Section 3 of the EO to suspend the

15

processing and/or issuance of immigrant visas to Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali

and A.F.A., Reema Khaled Dahman and G.E., and all other proposed class

16

members who have filed visa petitions and the beneficiaries of those visa petitions

17

who are applying for immigrant visas;

3. Enjoined and restrained from revoking immigrant visas based on Section 3 of the

18

EO;

4. Ordered to reinstate and, where necessary, reissue, the immigrant visas of all

19

nationals from the seven countries that were revoked pursuant to the issuance of

20

the EO, without the need for the foreign national to reapply for a visa;

5. Ordered to issue transportation letters, where necessary, to all nationals from the

21

seven countries with validly issued immigrant visas, including all individuals

whose visas are reinstated pursuant to #4 above; and

22

6. Ordered to advise immigrant visa petitioners, through electronic mail or

23

otherwise, of the status of immigrant visa applications submitted by beneficiaries

of their petitions.

24

This temporary restraining order is granted on a nationwide basis.
25

This Court has exercised its discretion to determine that no bond shall be required and
26

27 that this Order shall be effective immediately.

28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

1

2

DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, 2017.

3

4

JAMES L. ROBART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

6

7
Presented this 6th day of February, 2017, by:
8

9 s/Matt Adams 10 Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 11 Counsel for Plaintiffs

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 48

1

2

3

Honorable James L. Robart

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE
9

10 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Jaffer
11 Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh
HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma Olad 12 ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a minor; on
13 behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated,

14
15 vs.

Plaintiffs,

16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States
17 of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
General; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex 18 W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S.
19 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
20 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori 21 SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS;
22 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting Commissioner
23 of CBP; OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; Michael 24 DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National
25 Intelligence,

26

Defendants.

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

0

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 48

1

2

3
INTRODUCTION
4
1. Plaintiffs are four families who were, and continue to be, harmed by Defendant Trump’s
5
Executive Orders (EO), which unlawfully suspend the adjudication of immigrant visa
6
7 applications of foreign nationals from specified Muslim-majority countries. Plaintiffs are 2 8 United States citizens, 2 lawful permanent residents, and 6 nationals, including four minors, of 9 the countries targeted by the Executive Orders. They seek to be reunited and live as families in
10 the United States. They also seek to represent a class of similarly situated persons harmed by the
11 EOs.

12 2. All Plaintiffs have diligently pursued the lengthy and rigorous immigrant visa process,

13 which entails, inter alia, filing immigrant visa petitions and immigrant visa applications, paying

14 hundreds of dollars in filing and processing fees, undergoing security screenings and medical

15 examinations, and attending interviews before a consular officer.

16 3. On January 27, 2017, Defendant Trump issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the
17 Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017)
18 (EO1), which suspended visa adjudication and issuance for, as well as entry into the United
19 States on validly issued visas of, nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya,
20 Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. After this Court enjoined EO1 in Washington v. Trump, No.
21
2:17-cv-141-JLR, ECF 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16012 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017), Defendant
22
Trump issued a second EO, to be effective on March 16, 2017, which targeted the same countries
23
identified in EO1, with the exception of Iraq. Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation
24
From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13780 (Mar. 6, 2017) (EO2),
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 48

1

2

3
EO2 re-institutes the suspension of visa adjudication and issuance for these countries and re-
4
imposes the ban on entry for those without a valid visa on March 16, 2017.
5
4. In targeting all nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries, EO1 unlawfully
6
7 discriminates against Plaintiffs and proposed class members on the basis of their nationality and 8 religion. EO2 does not remedy the unlawful discrimination against Plaintiffs and proposed class 9 members on these bases, but rather continues it. These EOs have shattered Plaintiffs’ lives by
10 disrupting their ability to reunify with family members, conduct their business operations, and
11 pursue employment. The EOs have had and will continue to have a similar, harmful impact on

12 the scores of similarly situated families, U.S. businesses, and foreign national employees that

13 Plaintiffs seek to represent through this action. These far-reaching executive orders contain an

14 array of unlawful provisions with drastic consequences.

15 5. By indefinitely suspending adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas to all foreign

16 nationals of the targeted countries, based solely on their nationality, the EOs violate Congress’

17 clear intent in 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1) to prevent discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas

18 “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” They also

19 violate Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected rights to family, marriage, equal protection under the
20 law, and freedom from government establishment of religion.
21
6. Moreover, pursuant to EO2, Plaintiffs and proposed class members will be unable to
22
move forward with their immigrant visa applications for an indefinite period of time. Defendants
23
will not automatically lift either the suspension of visa adjudication and issuance or the ban on
24
entry imposed by EO2 for any of the targeted countries at the end of the initial 90-day period.
25
Rather, these will remain in effect until—and unless—each country satisfies certain as yet
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 48

1

2

3
unidentified information-sharing requirements, which may vary by country, for use in the visa
4
adjudication process. EO2, § 2; see also EO2 § 1(f). EO2 states that removing Iraq from the ban
5
was justified because of special conditions present there, including, inter alia, the “close
6
7 cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi 8 government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of 9 United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combat ISIS.” EO2, § 1(g). None of the
10 other six countries has this combination of favorable conditions; to the contrary, each suffers
11 from some combination of the following conditions that—at a minimum—will impede and delay

12 successful negotiations over information sharing necessary to lift the ban: war, civil strife and

13 unrest, absent or strained diplomatic relations with the United States, and lack of a U.S. embassy

14 presence.

15 7. Plaintiffs and prospective class members seek this Court’s intervention to remedy the

16 ongoing adverse impact of EO1 and to cease application of EO2 to Plaintiffs and proposed class
17 members—U.S.-based petitioners who successfully petitioned for the immigration of a foreign
18 national and nationals of the six designated countries who have applied for immigrant visas—to
19 prevent ongoing and future harm to these individuals. Such intervention is needed to protect the
20 integrity of the United States’ immigrant visa process.
21
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22
8. This case arises under the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality
23
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et
24
seq.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 5 of 48

1

2

3
9. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a civil action
4
arising under the laws of the United States, and the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, 28
5
U.S.C. § 1361. Declaratory judgment is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. The United
6
7 States has waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702. 8 10. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because 9 Defendants are officers or employees of the United States or agencies thereof acting in their
10 official capacities. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred
11 in this district, and Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman and Olad Issa Omar reside in this

12 district, as do many putative class members. In addition, no real property is involved in this

13 action.

14

PARTIES

15 11. Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali is a U.S. citizen who resides in Seattle, Washington.

16 12. Plaintiff A.F.A. is her seven-year-old son. He is a citizen and resident of Somalia.

17 Plaintiff A.F.A. has a pending immigrant visa application based on Plaintiff Ali’s approved

18 family-based immigrant visa petition filed on his behalf.

19 13. Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman is Syrian citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the
20 United States who resides in Seattle, Washington.
21
14. Plaintiff G.E. is her 16-year-old son. He is a citizen and resident of Syria. Plaintiff G.E.
22
has a pending immigrant visa application based on Plaintiff Dahman’s approved family-based
23
immigrant visa petition on his behalf.
24
15. Plaintiff Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain is a citizen of Pakistan and a lawful permanent resident
25
of the United States who resides in Parlin, New Jersey.
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 6 of 48

1

2

3
16. Plaintiff Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani is the wife of Plaintiff Hussain. She is a citizen and
4
resident of Iran. Plaintiff Hamedani has a pending immigrant visa application based on Plaintiff
5
Hussain’s approved family-based immigrant visa petition filed on her behalf.
6
7 17. Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar is a 46-year-old naturalized citizen of the United States who 8 resides in Seattle, Washington. Mr. Omar was born in Somalia. 9 18. Plaintiff Faduma Olad Issa is the nineteen-year-old daughter of Plaintiff Omar. She was
10 born in Kenya and resides in Kenya with her two siblings. Under Kenyan jus sanguinis law, she
11 is a citizen of Somalia. She has a pending immigrant visa application based upon Plaintiff

12 Omar’s approved family-based visa petition filed on her behalf.

13 19. Plaintiff F.O.I. is the seventeen-year-old daughter of Plaintiff Omar. She was born in

14 Kenya and resides in Kenya with her two siblings. Under Kenyan jus sanguinis law, she is a

15 citizen of Somalia. She has a pending immigrant visa application based upon Plaintiff Omar’s

16 approved family-based visa petition filed on her behalf.

17 20. Plaintiff S.O.I. is the twelve-year-old son of Plaintiff Omar. He was born in Kenya and

18 resides in Kenya with his two siblings. Under Kenyan jus sanguinis law, he is a citizen of

19 Somalia. He has a pending immigrant visa application based upon Plaintiff Omar’s approved
20 family-based visa petition filed on his behalf.
21
21. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official
22
capacity.
23
22. Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions is the Attorney General of the United States. He is sued
24
in his official capacity. Defendant Sessions has an integral role in the implementation of EO2.
25
He is sued in his official capacity.
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 7 of 48

1

2

3
23. Defendant U.S. Department of State (DOS) is a cabinet department of the United States
4
federal government. DOS has an integral role in the immigrant visa application and adjudication
5
process.
6
7 24. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the Secretary of State and as such is the chief foreign 8 affairs adviser to the President. His responsibilities include administering DOS and supervising 9 the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad. He has an integral role in the
10 implementation of EO2. He is sued in his official capacity.
11 25. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department of the

12 United States federal government. DHS has an integral role in the immigrant visa application and

13 adjudication process.

14 26. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of DHS and is responsible for the administration

15 and enforcement of the INA and oversight of all operations of DHS. He has an integral role in

16 the implementation of EO2. He is sued in his official capacity.
17 27. Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a component
18 of DHS responsible for, inter alia, adjudicating immigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of
19 foreign nationals seeking to immigrate to the United States. USCIS plays an integral role in the
20 immigrant visa application and adjudication process.
21
28. Defendant Lori Scialabba is the Acting Director of USCIS and is responsible for its
22
oversight and administration, including responsibility for USCIS’ role in the immigrant visa
23
application and adjudication process. She has an integral role in the implementation of EO2. She
24
is sued in her official capacity.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 8 of 48

1

2

3
29. Defendant Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a component of DHS responsible for,
4
inter alia, inspections of noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry and determining whether to
5
admit or parole them into the United States. CBP has and will continue to play an integral role in
6
7 implementing the EOs. 8 30. Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP and is responsible 9 for its oversight and administration, including CBP’s role in implementing the EOs. He has an
10 integral role in the implementation of EO2. He is sued in his official capacity.
11 31. Defendant Office of Director of National Intelligence is assigned responsibility under the

12 EOs to consult with DHS to determine what measures the affected countries will need to take in

13 order to resume immigrant visa adjudication for their nationals.

14 32. Defendant Michael Dempsey is the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and is

15 responsible for its oversight and administration, including responsibility for DNI’s role in vetting

16 countries targeted by the EOs. He is sued in his official capacity.

17

BACKGROUND

18 33. The INA sets forth a rigorous multi-step application process for those seeking to obtain

19 an immigrant visa to the United States. See generally 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 1154.
20 34. As an initial step, the government must receive and approve an immigrant visa petition. A
21
qualifying U.S. citizen family member or employer must submit a visa petition on behalf of a
22
foreign national beneficiary and pay an accompanying filing fee to USCIS, a subdivision of
23
DHS, using either Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) or Form I-140 (Petition for Alien
24
Worker). In order to qualify for a family-based visa immigrant petition, the petitioner’s
25
relationship to the beneficiary must fall within a prescribed statutory classification. In general, in
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 9 of 48

1

2

3
order to qualify for an employment-based immigrant visa, the beneficiary must meet a variety of
4
requirements, for example, qualification for the job that she seeks and a lack of U.S. workers
5
available to take that job.
6
7 35. Certain other limited categories of noncitizens are eligible to immigrate pursuant to the 8 diversity visa program and other special immigrant visa programs established by legislation. 9 These individuals apply for an immigrant visa by filing Form I-360 (Petition for Amerasian,
10 Widow(er), or Special Immigrant) with USCIS.
11 36. If USCIS approves the visa petition, the beneficiary of the petition is eligible to begin the

12 process to apply to immigrate as soon as a visa number becomes available. If a visa number is

13 immediately available, she may begin the process of applying for the immigrant visa

14 immediately; if there is a backlog in the visa category in which she falls, she may wait months or

15 years for a visa number to become immediately available. The length of the wait depends on

16 factors such as the type of petition, the country of nationality, and/or the family or employment
17 category for which a visa number is sought. See Visa Bulletin For March 2017, available at
18 https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2017/visa-bulletin-for-march-
19 2017.html.
20 37. After USCIS approves an immigrant visa petition, the beneficiary (i.e., the immigrant
21
visa applicant) faces additional fees, additional applications, and screening by the National Visa
22
Center (NVC), a component of DOS. Once the additional fees are paid, the immigrant visa
23
applicant must submit Form DS-260 (Immigrant Visa Electronic Application), and, in many
24
cases, Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support).
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 10 of 48

1

2

3
38. At this stage, DOS and DHS conduct a variety of security checks regarding the
4
applicant’s background and any possible criminal history. Pursuant to the Homeland Security
5
Act of 2002 (HSA), P.L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), the government created
6
7 and implemented multiple additional visa security screening mechanisms, and on September 28, 8 2003, DHS and DOS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding “to create and maintain an 9 effective, efficient visa process that secures America’s borders from external threats and ensures
10 that our borders remain open to legitimate travel to the United States.” Available at:
11 https://nationalimmigrationproject.org/PDFs/practitioners/practice_advisories/pr/dos-dhs-

12 mou.pdf.

13 39. Security checks include screening by Defendant DOS. Consular officers use the Consular

14 Lookout and Support System (CLASS), which was reported in 2012 to contain more than 42.5

15 million agency records, including those from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, and DHS, and

16 the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD), which contains more than 143 million visa
17 application records with biometric and biographic information. The CCD links with other
18 databases controlled by DHS and the FBI, including DHS’s Traveler Enforcement Compliance
19 System (TECS), a substantial database of law enforcement and border inspection information,
20 DHS’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), and the FBI’s Integrated
21
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). DOS also uses facial recognition
22
technology to screen visa applicants against a watchlist of photos of known and suspected
23
terrorists obtained from the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) and visa applicant photos
24
contained in the CCD.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 11 of 48

1

2

3
40. In addition to the extensive screening that each consular officer conducts in every case,
4
the officers must send select visa cases for greater review by intelligence and law enforcement
5
agencies, including the FBI and other counterterrorism agencies, for issuance of Security
6
7 Advisory Opinions (SAOs). 8 41. On information and belief, Defendant DHS also actively operates at least twenty-six Visa 9 Security Units (VSUs) in at least twenty high-risk countries abroad, which are dedicated to
10 performing visa security activities using law enforcement resources and databases not available
11 to consular officers.

12 42. Defendants also apply further interagency counterterrorism screening to all visa

13 applicants, with specialized screening for cases referred for SAOs, drawing on the federal

14 government’s terrorism databases and watchlists.

15 43. In addition to this vigorous screening process, immigrant visa applicants also must

16 undergo a medical examination by an embassy-approved physician, and submit to a ten-
17 fingerprint biometric scan, pursuant to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
18 of 2002, at the U.S. embassy or consulate before attending their visa interviews.
19 44. After all necessary paperwork and agency screening of the beneficiary is completed, the
20 U.S. embassy or consulate will issue an interview notice, requiring her to appear at a U.S.
21
embassy or consulate. At the appointment, a consular officer interviews the immigrant visa
22
applicant and reviews the wide range of supporting documents, including documentation of her
23
medical exam, identity documents, documents establishing her visa eligibility, a police
24
certificate, and any military or prison records.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 12 of 48

1

2

3
45. In order for a consular officer to grant an immigrant visa application, the officer must
4
establish that the applicant is eligible for a visa and is not barred by various grounds of
5
inadmissibility set forth in the INA, including national security-related grounds. See, e.g., 8
6
7 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3). 8 46. If the consular officer approves the immigrant visa application, the person is issued an 9 immigrant visa and accompanying paperwork in a sealed envelope (also known as an immigrant
10 visa packet), which she must present upon arrival in the United States. At the time the individual
11 receives the packet, she becomes an immigrant visa holder and must enter the United States

12 within 6 months of the date her visa is issued.

13 47. The individual presents the visa packet to a CBP inspecting officer at a port of entry. The

14 officer reviews the visa packet and independently determines the individual’s admissibility to the

15 United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. Upon admission to the United States, the immigrant visa

16 holder becomes a lawful permanent resident (LPR).

17 48. Other noncitizens who qualify for an immigrant visa through such programs as the

18 diversity visa and special immigrant visa programs follow a similar application, screening,

19 adjudication, and admission process.

20

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21
Defendant Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order

22
49. On January 20, 2017, Defendant Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of
23
the United States.
24
50. One week later, on January 27, Defendant Trump signed EO1. Claiming a need to
25
“protect Americans” from the threat of terrorism and blaming DOS policy for the September 11,
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 13 of 48

1

2

3
2001 tragedies (Sections 1 and 2), EO1 orders the immediate implementation of major changes
4
to the ability of foreign nationals to seek and obtain admission to the United States. It impacts all
5
major categories of foreign nationals who seek admission to the United States: immigrants,
6
7 nonimmigrants, and refugees. Among its provisions, EO1 directs federal agencies to develop 8 screening standards for all immigration benefits to identify individuals who enter fraudulently 9 intending to cause harm (Section 4); suspends refugee processing for 120 days, halts the
10 processing and admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and reduces the number of refugee
11 admissions from 110,000 to 50,000 in fiscal year 2017 (Section 5); orders the heads of executive

12 departments to consider rescinding their exercise of discretionary authority to waive

13 inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3) (Section 6); directs agencies to expedite the

14 completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit system which includes reporting

15 requirements (Section 7); and suspends DOS’s authority to waive visa interviews unless a person

16 is subject to a specific statutory exemption (Section 8).
17 51. Sections 3(a) and (b), entitled “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration
18 Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern,” order DHS, in consultation with DOS
19 and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), to review and submit a report to the President on
20 “the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit
21
under the INA (adjudications)” to verify an applicant’s identity and assess her threat to security
22
or public safety.
23
52. In Section 3(c), the President, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), bans all persons from
24
countries referred to in 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) from entering the United States on an immigrant
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 14 of 48

1

2

3
or nonimmigrant visa for 90 days, with limited exceptions not relevant here. These countries are
4
Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
5
53. Sections 3(d)-(f) set forth a timetable for identifying countries that do not supply the
6
7 information on foreign nationals included in the DHS report to the President and requesting their
8 compliance. For those that fail to comply, the President may impose a ban on the entry of

9 nationals of that country until such time as the country complies. At any time, DOS or DHS may

10 suggest that the President impose similar treatment on additional countries.

11

Resulting Chaos

12 54. Immediately following issuance of EO1, hundreds of persons involved in the immigrant

13 visa process were harmed. Plaintiffs A.F.A., G.E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Faduma Olad

14 Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I., along with an untold number of others, already had applied for visas;

15 they faced the immediate suspension of the adjudication of their immigrant visa applications.

16 Many others had been issued a visa and were en route or making plans to travel to the United

17 States, and suddenly found themselves banned from entering the United States notwithstanding

18 their valid visas.

19 55. The DOS and some U.S. embassies and consulates abroad immediately posted notices
20 advising immigrant visa applicants that visa issuance had been suspended and visa interviews
21
cancelled. The notices further advised that foreign nationals from the targeted countries should
22
not schedule visa appointments, pay visa fees, or attend scheduled visa interviews; in fact, the
23
notices indicated that individuals who showed up for scheduled visa interviews would not be
24
permitted entry into the U.S. embassy or consulate. On January 27, 2017, DOS Deputy Assistant
25
Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, issued a cable stating that, upon the request of DHS and
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 15 of 48

1

2

3
pursuant to EO1 and INA §§ 212(f) and 221(i) (8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1201(i)), he was
4
revoking all valid immigrant and nonimmigrant visas of nationals of the seven targeted countries,
5
with limited exceptions. Upon information and belief, DOS provisionally revoked approximately
6
7 60,000 visas in the period immediately following EO1. 8 56. An untold number of individuals who had already received valid visas were left unable to 9 travel. Many others with valid visas had booked travel to the United States and were stopped in
10 transit. Still others were refused entry into the United States and forced to return.
11 57. On February 3, 2017, the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a

12 temporary restraining (TRO) order in Washington v. Trump, enjoining sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b),

13 5(c), and 5(e) of EO1. See No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16012 (W.D. Wash.

14 Feb. 3, 2017). On February 4, 2017, the government appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit

15 and moved to stay this Court’s order, which the Ninth Circuit denied. See Washington v. Trump,

16 Case No. 17-35105 (9th Cir.).

17 58. Following issuance of the TRO, DOS announced that it had lifted the provisional

18 revocation of visas of nationals from the seven countries, and that those visas were valid for

19 travel to the United States if the individual was otherwise eligible. Notably, DOS stated that

20 individuals whose visas had expired in the interim would have to reapply for new visas or seek

21
extraordinary discretionary relief from CBP to enter the United States.

22

Defendant Trump Repeatedly Delays Issuing a New Executive Order

23

Despite Claims of Urgency

24 59. In defense of the chaotic roll-out of EO1 and its call for an immediate ban on entry and

25 suspension of immigration visa adjudications, Defendant Trump and those working closely with
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 16 of 48

1

2

3
him repeatedly stressed the urgency of the risk to the security of the United States. See, e.g.,
4
Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Jan. 30, 2017, 08:31 AM)
5
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 (“If the ban were announced
6
7 with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad 8 ‘dudes’ out there!”); Riley Beggin, Protesters Caused “Only Disruption” Surrounding 9 Immigration Order: White House Advisor, ABC NEWS (Feb. 2, 2017) (providing statement of
10 Stephen Miller that “[i]f you believe as we do that the next Trojan horse is just waiting to come
11 in, then you have an obligation to act quickly and expeditiously”). Subsequent to the temporary

12 restraining order issued in Washington, Defendant Trump stated that “many bad and dangerous

13 people may be pouring into our country” because of this Court’s “terrible decision.” Donald

14 Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Feb. 4, 2017, 04:44 PM)

15 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/ 827996357252243456; see also Full transcript:

16 President Donald Trump’s news conference, CNN (Feb. 16, 2017) (explaining that decision to

17 make EO1 effective immediately was to prevent “bad people” from having time to come in).

18 60. Despite this purported urgency, however, Defendant Kelly testified before Congress that

19 he should have delayed the roll-out of EO1 in order to discuss the plan with members of
20 Congress and with the leadership of relevant Congressional committees “to prepare them for
21
what was coming.” Matt Zapotosky, John Kelly testifies travel ban should have been delayed,
22
BOSTON GLOBE (Feb. 7, 2017).
23
61. Moreover, despite continued claims of urgency, Defendant Trump delayed issuance of
24
EO2 for weeks. See, e.g., Julia Carrie Wong, Trump to sign new immigration policy after
25
multiple court defeats of travel ban, GUARDIAN (February 16, 2017); Jennifer Jacobs, Trump
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 17 of 48

1

2

3
Delaying Revamped Immigration Order Until Next Week, Official Says, BLOOMBERG (Feb. 22,
4
2017); Laura Jarrett et al., Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech, CNN (Mar.
5

1, 2017). Reportedly, some of the delay was motivated by a desire to prolong favorable press
6

7 coverage of a speech made by Defendant Trump to Congress. Id.

8

Defendant Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order

9 62. On March 6, 2017, Defendant Trump issued EO2, which has the same discriminatory

10 effect and motive as EO1. Whereas EO1 banned entry from seven countries, EO2 omits Iraq

11 from this list, but continues to suspend visa adjudications and issuance and continues to ban

12 entry of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Thus, although Section 13

13 of EO2 technically revokes EO1 as of March 16, 2017, the unlawful effect of EO1 is extended

14 and continued in EO2.

15 63. Section 1(a), entitled “Policy and Purpose,” states that it is the policy of the United States

16 to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and to improve the screening and vetting protocols

17 and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process. Section 1(e) quotes from DOS Country

18 Reports on Terrorism 2015 regarding each of the six countries now included in the ban.

19 Following these summaries, Section 1(f) states that a ban on entry is necessary because the “risk
20 of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit
21
terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high.”
22
64. Section 1(h) declares that “recent history shows” that individuals have previously entered
23
the United States who were threats to national security, and alludes to “hundreds of people who
24
were born abroad who have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States since
25
2001.” (emphasis added). EO2 provides no evidence in support of this statement; does not define
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

16

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 18 of 48

1

2

3
what constitute “terrorism-related crimes;” and significantly, does not indicate whether any such
4
crimes were committed by nationals of the six countries included in EO2.
5
65. In fact, it identifies only one such case—that of a Somalian who entered the United States
6
7 as a refugee when a child. Id. On information and belief, this is a reference to the case of 8 Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who entered the United States as a five-year-old refugee in 1996, 9 subsequently became a U.S. citizen, and at age nineteen was arrested for the crime in question.
10 Lynne Terry, Family of Portland’s bomb suspect, Mohamed Mohamud, fled chaos in Somalia for
11 new life in America, THE OREGONIAN (Dec. 4, 2010). EO2 does not clarify how heightened visa

12 screening might detect and prevent the future radicalization of a five-year-old.

13 66. Section 2(a) through 2(g) set out a multi-step process for review of, and determinations

14 about, the information-sharing protocols that Defendants will require of the six countries in order

15 to lift the suspension.

16 67. Section 2(c) contains the ban on entry that continues that found in Section 3(c) in EO1.
17 Specifically, Defendant Trump proclaims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the
18 unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of the six targeted countries “would be
19 detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The entry of such nationals is again suspended
20 for 90 days, starting on March 16, 2017.
21
68. EO2 purports to adopt this ban to “to temporarily reduce investigative burdens on
22
relevant agencies” during review of the information-sharing protocols of each of the targeted
23
countries; “to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the
24
screening and vetting of foreign nationals;” and “to ensure that adequate standards are
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 19 of 48

1

2

3
established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists… in light of the national security
4
concerns” with respect to each of the targeted countries.
5
69. Additional guidance provided by Defendant DHS indicates that the ban contained in
6
7 Section 2(c) applies “to both nationals and citizens of the six countries.” Q&A: Protecting the 8 Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Mar. 6, 9 2017).
10 70. Section 3(a) specifies that the ban applies to nationals of the designated countries who are
11 outside the United States on the effective date of this order; did not have a valid visa at 5:00

12 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and do not have a valid visa on the effective

13 date of this order. Section 3(b) contains limited exceptions to this, none of which are applicable

14 to the adjudication of immigrant visas.

15 71. Section 3(c) provides a list of potential grounds for individual waivers of the suspension

16 of adjudications and entry. This waiver process is entirely discretionary, and the burden is placed

17 on visa applicants to “demonstrate[] to the officer’s satisfaction” that: denying entry during the

18 suspension period would cause undue hardship;” the foreign national’s “entry would not pose a

19 threat to national security;” and such entry “would be in the national interest.” For immigrant
20 visa applicants who fall within the scope of the ban, § 3(a), no visa will be issued without a
21
waiver being granted. See §§ 2(c) and (3).
22
72. Section 3(c) identifies nine situations in which a discretionary case-by-case waiver
23
“could be appropriate.” Those relevant to foreign nationals applying for an immigrant visa
24
include cases in which the foreign national: demonstrates that undue hardship would be caused if
25
prevented from visiting or residing with U.S. citizen or lawfully residing noncitizen family
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

18

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 20 of 48

1

2

3
members in the United States; has previously studied or worked in the United States; has
4
significant ties to the United States; has significant business or professional interests here; is an
5
infant, young child, adoptee, or person with urgent medical needs; is a former employee of the
6
7 U.S. government; or is a landed Canadian immigrant applying for a visa from within Canada. 8 73. Section 3(c) provides no guidance on how the waiver process will be implemented, nor 9 does it indicate how a visa applicant might meet the burden of proving he or she is not a threat to
10 national security in light of the purported difficulty that Defendants have in making exactly such
11 determinations with respect to nationals of the targeted countries.

12

EO2 Is Not a “Temporary Suspension”

13 74. Sections 2(a), (b), and (d) through (f) of EO2 make clear that the initial 90-day

14 suspension period will not be lifted automatically for any of the targeted countries. Instead, these

15 sections provide a complex, multi-step process for determining what additional information-

16 sharing each country must adopt in order for the ban to be lifted. These steps include an initial
17 review of the existing information-sharing capabilities of each country; a determination of the
18 additional information each country will need to share to satisfy Defendants that visa applicants
19 from that country do not present a safety threat, which may vary by country; a report to the
20 President on these determinations; negotiations with each country to obtain the additional
21
information that is to be required; recommendations to the President about what countries should
22
be subject to a continued entry ban based upon the outcome of the negotiations; and a
23
proclamation from the President regarding the countries to be subject to a continued ban on entry
24
of all or categories of its population who seek visas to the United States.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

19

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 21 of 48

1

2

3
75. Specifically, in Section 2(d), the Secretary of State is instructed to request that “all
4
foreign governments that do not supply [information described in Section 2(a)] regarding their
5
nationals” begin providing such information within 50 days. After 50 days, Section 2(e) directs
6
7 the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General to “submit 8 to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that 9 would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not
10 provided” the information described in section 2(a). This new proclamation would be indefinite,
11 continuing “until [the countries provide the information] or until the Secretary of Homeland

12 Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared

13 information through other means.”

14 76. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not had any formal diplomatic relations with the United

15 States since April 1980. Following EO1, the Iranian government issued a reciprocal travel ban on

16 American citizens, and continued this ban following EO2. Iran keeps ban on US visitors in

17 response to Trump order, YAHOO.COM, Mar. 7, 2017, https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-

18 keeps-ban-us-visitors-response-trump-order-104300662.html. Iranian nationals and citizens

19 wishing to immigrate to the United States undergo the full panoply of visa screening and
20 adjudication in one of three U.S. embassies in Armenia, Turkey, or the United Arab Emirates. In
21
the 37 years since the United States severed diplomatic ties with Iran and implemented visa
22
processing outside of Iran, no American has been killed by an Iranian national in the United
23
States as a result of any planned or actual terrorism-related act. Upon information and belief,
24
negotiations over information sharing with the government of Iran will prolong indefinitely the
25
period in which the ban is imposed on nationals of that country.
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

20

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 22 of 48

1

2

3
77. Although the United States maintains formal relations with the Government of National
4
Accord of Libya, this government does not control the majority of territory in Libya, and the
5
United States has not had an embassy in Libya since July 26, 2014. U.S. Dep't of State, Libya
6
7 Travel Warning, TRAVEL.STATE.GOV (Jan 27, 2017). Libyan nationals and citizens wishing 8 to immigrate to the United States currently undergo full panoply of visa screening and 9 adjudication in the U.S. embassy in Rabat, Morocco. In the three years since closing the U.S.
10 Embassy in Libya, no Libyan national has been convicted of any planned or actual terrorism-
11 related violent act in the United States. Upon information and belief, negotiations over

12 information sharing with the government of Libya will prolong indefinitely the period in which

13 the ban is imposed on nationals of that country.

14 78. Although the United States recently reestablished formal diplomatic relations with

15 Somalia, it has not had an embassy in Somalia in over twenty years. Bureau of African Affairs,

16 U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. Relations with Somalia (2016). The current Somali government does

17 not control the entire land mass of Somalia. Roughly 20 percent of Somalia is under the control

18 of the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, which has no formal relations with the United States

19 Additionally, a large percentage of Somali nationals reside outside Somalia in neighboring
20 countries. Somalia nationals and citizens wishing to immigrate to the United States currently
21
undergo the full panoply of visa screenings and adjudication at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi,
22
Kenya, or at another U.S. Embassy outside of Somalia. In more than two decades since the
23
United States closed its embassy in Somalia, only a single Somali individual, Mohamed Osman
24
Mohamud, see supra at ¶65, has been convicted of any planned or actual terrorism-related
25
violent act in the United States, and no American has been killed by a Somalia national in the
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

21

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 23 of 48

1

2

3
United States as a result of any planned or actual terrorism-related act. Upon information and
4
belief, negotiations over information sharing with the government of Somalia will prolong
5
indefinitely the period in which the ban is imposed on nationals of that country.
6
7 79. Although the United States has not appointed an ambassador to Sudan since 2014, the 8 United States maintains formal diplomatic relations with Sudan and currently maintains an 9 embassy in the capital city of Khartoum. Bureau of African Affairs, US Dep’t of State, U.S.
10 Relations with Sudan (2015). Due to ongoing and widescale human rights violations on the part
11 of the government of Sudan, the United States has a contentious relationship with the Sudanese

12 government and in recent years has formally sanctioned the Sudanese government twice. Id.

13 Sudanese nationals and citizens wishing to immigrate to the United States currently undergo the

14 full panoply of visa screenings and adjudication in the U.S. embassy in Khartoum. No American

15 has ever been killed by a Sudanese national in the United States as a result of any planned or

16 actual terrorism-related act. Upon information and belief, negotiations over information sharing

17 with the government of Sudan will prolong indefinitely the period in which the ban is imposed

18 on nationals of that country.

19 80. The Syrian Arab Republic currently does not have any formal diplomatic relations with
20 the United States, following action taken by DOS to expel the Syrian embassy and consular
21
presence from the United States as of March 31, 2014. Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Dep’t
22
of State, U.S. Relations with Syria (2014). Syrian nationals and citizens wishing to immigrate to
23
the United States currently undergo the full panoply of visa screening and adjudication in the
24
U.S. embassy in Amman, Jordan. In the three years since the United States severed diplomatic
25
ties with Syria, no Syrian national has been convicted of any planned or actual terrorism-related
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

22

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 24 of 48

1

2

3
violent act in the United States. Upon information and belief, negotiations over information
4
sharing with the government of Syria will prolong indefinitely the period in which the ban is
5
imposed on nationals of that country.
6
7 81. Although the United States maintains formal diplomatic relations with Yemen, it has not 8 had an embassy in Yemen since February 2015. Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Dep’t of 9 State, U.S. Relations with Yemen (2017). The Yemeni government currently does not have
10 control of the capitol of Yemen. Id. Yemeni nationals and citizens wishing to immigrate to the
11 United States currently undergo visa processing at the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, Djibouti. In the

12 two years since the United States closed its embassy in Yemen, no Yemeni individual has been

13 convicted of any planned or actual terrorism-related violent act in the United States. Upon

14 information and belief, negotiations over information sharing with the government of Yemen

15 will prolong indefinitely the period in which the ban is imposed on nationals of that country.

16 82. EO2’s stated reasons for excluding Iraq indicate the lengths to which a country must go
17 to be removed from the travel ban. Section 1(g) of EO2 states that “Iraq is a special case,”
18 because of the “close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically
19 elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant
20 presence of the United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combat ISIS.” All of these
21
rationales existed prior to EO1. The only post-EO1 justification for excluding Iraq from the EO2
22
target list is the assertion that, in the roughly five week period between the two EOs, the Iraqi
23
government “has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information
24
sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

23

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 25 of 48

1

2

3
83. Upon information and belief, none of the six countries currently included in EO2 meet
4
the factors which it identified as determinative in Defendant Trump’s the decision to remove Iraq
5
from the ban. EO2, § 1(g); see also State Department Dissent Memo, supra (“In some cases, the
6
7 governments of these countries may be wholly incapable of providing this information; in others,
8 the government may be unwilling.”). Under the provisions of EO2, nationals of any country

9 which is unwilling or unable to provide the information described in Section 2(b) will be barred

10 indefinitely from entry to the United States.

11

Defendants Intended EO2 to Achieve Substantially the Same Result as EO1.

12 84. The purpose of EO2 is to give effect to the actions proscribed in EO1 in a manner that

13 will best shield those actions from the legal challenges EO1 has endured. For example,

14 Defendant Trump has stated: “The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I

15 consider a very, very bad decision … We can tailor the order to the decision to get just as much.”

16 Jennifer Jacobs, Trump Delaying Revamped Immigration Order Until Next Week, Official Says,

17 BLOOMBERG (Feb. 22, 2017).

18 85. EO2 operates directly in conjunction with EO1 in an effort to achieve the same result but

19 is more artfully drafted in an attempt to withstand judicial scrutiny. This is made further apparent
20 by the fact that EO2 does not purport to revoke EO1 until the effective date of EO2, March 16,
21
2016.
22
86. White House Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller explained that the revisions in EO2
23
are intended to address only “very technical issues” and achieve “the same basic policy
24
outcome” as EO2. Trump adviser says new travel ban will have "same basic policy
25
outcome," (Feb. 21, 2017) interview clip at 3:16-3:51, available
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

24

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 26 of 48

1

2

3
at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/21/trump-adviser-says-new-travel-ban-will-have-
4
same-basic-policy-outcome.html.
5
Animus Directing Defendant Trump’s Executive Orders Banning Immigration
6
7 87. Through repeated statements, Defendant Trump has demonstrated his intent to target the 8 admission of foreign nationals based upon their practice of Islam and because of his animus 9 against Muslims. As a candidate, Defendant Trump championed an explicit Muslim ban, “calling
10 for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's
11 representatives can figure out what is going on.” Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement

12 On Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-

13 releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration. When interviewed the

14 next day about how the “shutdown” would work for a Muslim immigrant arriving at a port of

15 entry, Defendant Trump offered the suggestion that, “[T]hey [customs officials] would say, are

16 you Muslim?” Defendant Trump then confirmed that if the person admitted to being Muslim,
17 they would not be allowed to enter. Nick Gass, Trump not bothered by comparisons to Hitler,
18 Politico (Dec. 8, 2015).
19 88. When British citizens responded to the proposed Muslim ban with a record-breaking
20 petition to block Defendant Trump from entering the United Kingdom, see Issie Lapowsky,
21
Online Petition to Ban Trump Is Now the UK’s Most Popular, WIRED (Dec. 10, 2015), Donald
22
Trump responded by tweeting repeatedly about the United Kingdom’s “massive Muslim
23
problem.” See, e.g., Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Dec. 10, 2015, 07:49 AM),
24
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/674934005725331456.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 27 of 48

1

2

3
89. When asked whether he believed that “Islam is at war with the U.S.,” Defendant Trump
4
responded “I think Islam hates us. … There’s an unbelievable hatred of us… There is a
5
tremendous hatred and we have to be very vigilant and we have to be very careful and we can’t
6
7 allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people 8 who are not Muslim.” Theodore Schleifer, Donald Trump: “I think Islam hates us,” CNN (Mar. 9 10, 2016). Soon after, Defendant Trump asserted that there was “no way” he would allow
10 Muslims to “flow in” to the United States. Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Mar
11 22, 2016, 09:59 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/712473816614772736

12 (“Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak

13 and open-and let the Muslims flow in. No way!”).

14 90. Subsequently, Defendant Trump linked a proposed nationality-based immigration ban to

15 Islam by claiming that “[w]e are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into the West through a

16 failed immigration system.” Donald J. Trump Addresses Terrorism, Immigration, and National

17 Security, Donald Trump Campaign (June 13, 2016). In the same speech, he singled immigration

18 of Muslims as a key problem faced by the United States: “Each year the United States

19 permanently admits 100,000 immigrants from the Middle East and many more from Muslim
20 countries outside of the Middle East. Our government has been admitting ever-growing numbers,
21
year after year, without any effective plan for our own security.” Id. He later declared that “[o]ur
22
way of life is under threat by Radical Islam.” (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (July 25, 2016,
23
10:50 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758872422028148740.
24
91. Members of the White House staff who were responsible for drafting EO1 include White
25
House Senior Policy Director Stephen Miller and White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon,
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

26

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 28 of 48

1

2

3
both of whom are close advisors to Defendant Trump. Bannon Driving Force Behind Trump’s
4
Hardline Immigration Ban, Officials Say, NEWSWEEK, Jan. 30, 2017, available at
5
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve-bannon-immigration-ban-immigration-muslim-
6
7 550415. Both have publicly voiced animus against Muslims. Stephen Miller founded an 8 organization called the “Terrorism Awareness Project,” wrote that America was in a “war against 9 the Islamic jihad” and “its religion of terror,” and urged students to “mobilize support for the
10 defense of America and the civilization of the West.” Andrew Kaczynski and Chris Massie, In
11 college, Trump aide Stephen Miller led controversial ‘Terrorism Awareness Project’ warning of

12 ‘Islamofascism,’ CNN (Feb. 15, 2017). Stephen Bannon stated in 2014 that “we are in an

13 outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism,” and urged Catholics to recall “the long history of

14 the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam.” Scott Shane, Stephen Bannon in 2014: We Are

15 at War With Radical Islam, NY Times (Feb. 1, 2017).

16 92. When Defendant Trump signed EO1, he stated that he was “establishing new vetting

17 measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out.” Dan Merica, Trump signs executive order to

18 keep out “radical Islamic terrorists,” CNN (Jan. 30, 2017).

19 93. Two days after EO1 was signed, Rudolph Giuliani, Defendant Trump’s advisor on
20 cybersecurity, confirmed that it was intended to be a “legal” ban on Muslims. See Amy B. Wang,
21
Trump asked for a “Muslim ban,” Giuliani says—and ordered a commission to do it “legally,”
22
Wash. Post (Jan. 29, 2017) (“So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He
23
called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”).
24
Mr. Giuliani’s admission is supported by Defendant Trump’s own explanation of EO1: “People
25
were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word ‘Muslim.’ Remember
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 29 of 48

1

2

3
this. And I'm okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.” Rebecca Shabad,
4
Donald Trump says he's expanding his Muslim ban, CBS News (July 25, 2016).
5
94. Following the Department of Justice’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Washington,
6
7 Defendant Trump stated on Twitter that “Courts must act fast” because “[t]he threat from radical 8 Islamic terrorism is very real.” Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Feb 6, 2017, 09:49 9 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/828797801630937089.
10 95. More than three weeks after signing EO1, Defendant Trump continued to link it to Islam:
11 “I've taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorist[s] the hell out of our country.”

12 President Donald Trump, Remarks at Rally in Melbourne, Florida (Feb 18, 2017), available at

13 http://pbpo.st/2kLCMfr.

14 96. The text of EO1 further demonstrated its bias against Muslims by singling out refugee

15 claims by individuals who are religious minorities in their countries of origin. EO1, § 5(b); see

16 also Michael D. Shear & Helene Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim
17 Countries, NY Times (Jan. 27, 2017) (“[President Trump] ordered that Christians and others
18 from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.”). On the same day EO1 was signed,
19 President Trump agreed that the changes to the refugee programs were made to give priority to
20 Christians, falsely stating that “If you were a Muslim you could come in [as a refugee], but if you
21
were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” David Brody, Brody File Exclusive: President
22
Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees (Jan 27, 2017). Two days
23
later, Defendant Trump tweeted that “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large
24
numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!” Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump),
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

28

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 30 of 48

1

2

3
Twitter (Jan 29, 2017, 07:04 AM)
4
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858.
5
97. EO2 is, in relevant substantive part, a nearly-identical continuation of EO1; both were
6
7 intended to mark Muslims for disfavored treatment. No country with a different religious 8 majority, regardless of political instability or lack of cooperation with the U.S. government, is 9 similarly targeted. For example, the United States does not have diplomatic relations with
10 Bhutan and North Korea and engages in no information-sharing with those governments. US
11 Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Countries with Limited or No Visa Services,

12 travel.state.gov (Accessed Mar 10, 2017),

13 https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/countries-with-limited-or-no-u-s--visa-

14 services.html.

15 98. The principal effect of EO2 is to inhibit religion. By singling out and barring visa

16 issuance for applicants from six predominantly Muslim nations, EO2’s operation will have the

17 intended effect of limiting the ability of Muslims to immigrate to the United States and further

18 stigmatizing Islam as disfavored by the U.S. government. Such stigma will not only harm

19 Plaintiffs and proposed class members, but likely will harm Muslims living in the U.S., and
20 potential immigrants abroad discouraged from seeking admission.
21
Leading National Security and Foreign Policy Experts Condemn the EO
22
99. Leading national security experts, including former Secretary of State John Kerry,
23
criticized EO1 as unmoored from legitimate national security claims. See Joint Declaration of
24
Madeleine K. Albright, et al. at 2, Washington, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. 2017), ECF 28-2. Four of
25
the declarants were officials who “were current on active intelligence regarding all credible
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

29

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 31 of 48

1

2

3
terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as one week before the issuance of
4
[EO1].” Id. at ¶ 2. They were “unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban,”
5
and stated that “in our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or
6
7 foreign policy grounds.” Id. at ¶ 3. They further concluded that “[t]here is no national security 8 purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from seven named countries.” Id. at ¶ 4. 9 100. Additionally, more than 1,000 State Department employees signed a dissent cable in
10 opposition to EO1, stating that it “will have little practical effect in improving public safety,” and
11 that “[t]he end result of this ban will not be a drop in terror attacks in the United States; rather, it

12 will be a drop in international good will towards Americans and a threat towards our economy.”

13 Jeffrey Gettleman, State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures, NY

14 Times (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-

15 dept-dissent-cable-trump-immigration-order.html.

16 101. A draft of Defendant DHS’s own post-hoc review challenged Defendant Trump’s “core

17 claims” behind EO1—that there was an increased risk of terror-related incidents from foreign

18 nationals coming to the United States from the targeted countries—and concluded that the ban

19 was ineffective. See Salama & Caldwell, AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned
20 nations, Assoc. Press (Feb. 24, 2017), available at http://apne.ws/2ldKZtf (noting that “country
21
of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity”).
22
102. A report published subsequent to EO1 by Defendant DHS’s Office of Intelligence and
23
Analysis further undercut the basis for the sweeping EO, indicating that the clear majority of
24
foreign-born individuals arrested for terrorism charges in the United States were not radicalized
25
at the time they immigrated to the United States. DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Most
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

30

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 32 of 48

1

2

3
Foreign-born, US-based Violent Extremists Radicalized after Entering Homeland (Mar. 1, 2017),
4
available at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trms-exclusive-dhs-document-undermines-trump-case-
5
6 travel-ban. 7 103. Other statistics confirm these conclusions. No American citizen has ever been killed in a 8 terrorist attack in the United States by an individual from one of the six countries included in 9 EO2. Alex Nowrasteh, Little National Security Benefit to Trump’s Executive order on
10 Immigration, CATO (Jan. 25, 2017).
11 104. EO2 is subject to the same critiques as EO1. It continues the complete suspension of visa

12 issuance and the ban on entry for all foreign nationals of the six targeted countries who do not

13 have a visa in hand on March.

14 105. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly acknowledged on March 6, 2017, that there

15 are other countries with questionable vetting procedures that are not on the list and likely will not

16 be put on the list; “There's a number of them out there, I don't want to speculate. There's

17 probably 13 or 14 countries, not all of them Muslim countries, not all of them in the Middle East,

18 that have questionable vetting procedures we can rely on.” Daniella Diaz, Kelly: There are '13 or

19 14' more countries with questionable vetting procedures, CNN (Mar. 7, 2017).

20

PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS

21
Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and her son A.F.A.
22
106. Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali is a 23-year-old U.S. citizen who resides in Seattle,
23
Washington.
24
107. Ms. Ali was born in Somalia and came to the United States as a child.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

31

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 33 of 48

1

2

3
108. She derived U.S. citizenship on August 31, 2010 when her mother became a U.S.
4
citizen.
5
109. On August 12, 2016, Ms. Ali filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-130)
6
7 for her son, Plaintiff A.F.A., with USCIS, along with the then requisite $420.00 filing fee. 8 110. A.F.A. is a 7-year-old citizen and resident of Somalia, where he lives with his 9 grandmother.
10 111. On December 21, 2016, USCIS approved the immigrant visa petition Ms. Ali filed on
11 behalf of A.F.A. and his case was subsequently transferred to the NVC for the processing of an

12 immigrant visa as a child of a U.S. citizen (IR-2).

13 112. On January 17, 2017, the NVC processed Ms. Ali’s payment of the requisite $325

14 processing fee for the Immigrant Visa Application, along with the requisite $120 processing fee

15 for the Affidavit of Support.

16 113. On January 20, 2017, Ms. Ali electronically submitted A.F.A.’s immigrant visa

17 application (Form DS-260). Also on that date, she mailed all supporting documents and Request

18 for Exemption for Intending Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support (Form I-864W) to the NVC.

19 114. The United States does not have an embassy or mission that processes immigrant visas in
20 Somalia. The U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya can process and issue immigrant visas for
21
Somalian nationals.
22
115. Ms. Ali and A.F.A. are currently waiting for the U.S. embassy in Nairobi to schedule an
23
immigrant visa interview.
24
116. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of EO1, Defendants suspended the adjudication of A.F.A.’s
25
immigrant visa application.
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

32

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 34 of 48

1

2

3
117. Pursuant to Section 2 of EO2, Ms. Ali and A.F.A. again face indefinite separation as
4
A.F.A.’s immigrant visa application adjudication will again be suspended, creating, at a
5
minimum, irreparable harm by further delay and separation, with a very real possibility that the
6
7 United States will not permit A.F.A. to ever enter the United States to join his mother, Ms. Ali.

8

Plaintiffs Reema Khaled Dahman and her son G.E.

9 118. Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman is a 41-year-old U.S. lawful permanent resident (“LPR”)

10 who lives in Kent, Washington.

11 119. She is a Syrian citizen who became an LPR on September 18, 2012.

12 120. On October 19, 2015, Ms. Dahman filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-

13 130) on behalf of her son, Plaintiff G.E., with USCIS, along with the then requisite $420.00

14 filing fee.

15 121. G.E. is a 16-year-old citizen and resident of Syria, where he lives with his grandmother.

16 122. G.E. and his mother have not seen each other since 2012.
17
123. On June 1, 2016, USCIS approved the I-130 petition Ms. Dahman filed on behalf of G.E.
18
124. USCIS subsequently transferred his case to the NVC for the processing of an immigrant
19
visa as a minor son of an LPR.
20
125. On September 22, 2016, the NVC processed Ms. Dahaman’s payment of the requisite
21
$325 processing fee for the Immigrant Visa Application, along with the requisite $120
22
processing fee for the Affidavit of Support.
23
126. On December 2, 2016, Ms. Dahman electronically submitted G.E.’s immigrant visa
24
application (Form DS-260). Also on that date, Ms. Dahman e-mailed the NVC all civil
25
documents and her Affidavit of Support (Form I-864).
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

33

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 35 of 48

1

2

3
127. The United States does not have an embassy or mission that processes immigrant visas in
4
Syria. The U.S. embassy in Amman, Jordan processes and issues immigrant visas for Syrian
5
nationals.
6
7 128. Ms. Dahman and G.E. are currently waiting for the U.S. embassy in Amman to schedule 8 an immigrant visa interview. 9 129. The website of the U.S. embassy in Amman announced that it had suspended the
10 processing of immigrant visas of Syrian nationals pursuant to Section 3(c) of EO1, see
11 https://jo.usembassy.gov/special-information-for-syrian-applicants/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2017).

12 130. Pursuant to Section 2 of EO2, Plaintiffs again face indefinite separation as G.E.’s

13 immigrant visa application adjudication will be suspended, creating, at a minimum, irreparable

14 harm by further delay and separation, with a very real possibility that the United States will not

15 permit G.E. to ever enter the United States to join his mother, Ms. Dahman.

16
Plaintiffs Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain and his wife Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani
17
131. Plaintiff Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain is a 36-year-old lawful permanent resident of the United
18
States who resides in Parlin, New Jersey. He is a software developer.
19
132. Mr. Hussain was born in Pakistan, and came to the United States in 1999 as an F-1
20
student to attend the University of Wisconsin, where he received the degree of Bachelor of
21
Science in Electrical Engineering. He continued his education at Northeastern University, where
22
he received his master's degree. He was granted a change of status to H-1B on October 1, 2008.
23
He was sponsored by his employer for permanent residence, and he became a permanent resident
24
of the United States on October 2, 2013.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

34

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 36 of 48

1

2

3
133. On April 14, 2015, Mr. Hussain filed with USCIS a family-based immigrant visa petition
4
(Form I-130) for his wife, Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, along with the filing fee of $420.00.
5
134. Ms. Hamedani is a 31-year-old citizen and resident of Iran. She was born in Iran.
6
7 135. On October 13, 2015, USCIS approved the I-130 petition, and the petition was 8 subsequently transferred to the NVC for the adjudication of an immigrant visa as the spouse of a 9 permanent resident (F2A).
10 136. On January 20, 2016, the NVC processed Mr. Hussain's payment for the requisite $325
11 processing fee for the Immigrant Visa Application, along with the requisite $120 processing fee

12 for the Affidavit of Support.

13 137. On October 28, 2016, Mr. Hussain informed the NVC that his child E.S. had been born

14 subsequent to the approval of the I-130 petition, and that the child should be added to the

15 immigrant visa application as a derivative.

16 138. On November 17, 2016, the NVC processed the additional $325 processing fee for the

17 Immigrant Visa Application for E.S.

18 139. On November 27, 2016, Ms. Hamedani electronically submitted her immigrant visa

19 application (Form DS-260) to the NVC. On December 16, 2016 the DS-260 application was
20 submitted on behalf of E.S.
21
140. On January 27, 2017, all required civil documents and the Affidavit of Support were sent
22
to the NVC, which received them on January 30, 2017.
23
141. On February 1, 2017, the cutoff date for the F2A category advanced to April 15, 2015 for
24
persons born in Iran, pursuant to the Visa Bulletin published monthly by DOS. The priority date
25
for Ms. Hamedani's application is April 14, 2015. Therefore, under the family immigrant quota
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

35

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 37 of 48

1

2

3
system, immigrant visas became immediately available to Ms. Hamedani and E.S. on and after
4
February 1, 2017. Their priority date remains current as of the date of the filing of this complaint.
5
142. On February 20, 2017, the NVC sent a letter stating that all required documentation for
6
7 the immigrant visa case of Ms. Hamedani and E.S. had been received, and that the applications 8 were now in the queue awaiting an interview appointment. 9 143. The United States does not have an embassy or mission that processes immigrant visas in
10 Iran. The immigrant visa case of Ms. Hamedani and E.S. has been assigned to the U.S. consulate
11 in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

12 144. Ms. Hamedani and E.S. are currently waiting for the U.S. consulate in Abu Dhabi to

13 schedule an immigrant visa interview.

14 145. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of EO1, Defendants suspended the adjudication of Ms.

15 Hamedani and E.S.’s immigrant visa application.

16 146. Pursuant to section 2(c) of EO2, Mr. Hussanin, Ms. Hamedani, and E.S. again face

17 indefinite separation as Ms. Hamedani and E.S.’s immigrant visa adjudication will again be

18 suspended, creating, at a minimum, irreparable harm by further delay and separation, with a very

19 real possibility that the United States will not permit Ms. Hamidani and E.S. to ever enter the

20 United States to join their husband and father, respectively.

21

Plaintiffs Olad Issa Omar, his daughter Faduma Olad Issa, his minor daughter F.O.I.,

22

and his minor son S.O.I.

23 147. Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar is a 46-year-old naturalized citizen of the United States who

24 resides in Seattle, Washington. Mr. Omar was born in Somalia.

25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

36

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 38 of 48

1

2

3
148. On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff Omar filed with USCIS a family-based immigrant visa
4
petition (Form I-130) for his three children, along with the filing fee of $420.00.
5
149. Plaintiff Faduma Olad Issa is a 19-year-old citizen of Somalia and resident of Kenya.
6
7 She was born in a refugee camp in Kenya. 8 150. Plaintiff F.O.I. is a 17-year-old citizen of Somalia and resident of Kenya. She was born in 9 a refugee camp in Kenya.
10 151. Plaintiff S.O.I. is a 12-year-old citizen of Somalia and resident of Kenya. He was born in
11 a refugee camp in Kenya.

12 152. On July 27, 2014, USCIS approved the I-130 petition for all three of Plaintiff Omar’s

13 children, and they were transferred to the NVC for the adjudication of an immigrant visa as

14 immediate relatives of Plaintiff Omar. Their visas became immediately available.

15 153. On October 24, 2016, Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I, completed their medical

16 examination, and all three were scheduled to attend an immigrant visa interview in Nairobi,
17 Kenya in November 2016, but that interview was cancelled.
18 154. Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I were then scheduled to return for an immigrant visa
19 interview on March 20, 2017. On January 28, 2017, a day after EO1 was issued, Plaintiff Omar
20 received an email cancelling his children’s immigrant visa interview.
21
155. After the Western District of Washington’s injunction of EO1, Plaintiff Omar scheduled
22
an immigrant visa interview for his children, for the third time.
23
156. Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I are now scheduled to attend an immigrant visa interview
24
on March 13, 2017.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

37

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 39 of 48

1

2

3
157. On March 7, 2017, the U.S. consulate in Nairobi, Kenya sent an email to Plaintiff Omar
4
informing him of EO2, signed the day before, without a clarification of the effect it has on his
5
children’s individual cases.
6
7 158. Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I are currently planning to attend their interview on March 8 13, 2017 at the U.S. consulate in Nairobi. 9 159. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of EO1, Defendants suspended the adjudication of Plaintiffs Issa,
10 F.O.I, and S.O.I.’s immigrant visa applications.
11 160. Pursuant to Section 2(c) of EO2, Plaintiff Omar and his children again face indefinite

12 separation, as adjudication of the immigrant visa applications of Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I

13 will again be suspended—creating, at a minimum, irreparable harm by further delay and

14 separation, with a very real possibility that the United States will not permit Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I,

15 and S.O.I. to ever enter the United States to join their father.

16

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

17 161. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly

18 situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). A class action is proper

19 because this action involves questions of law and fact common to the class, the class is so
20 numerous that joinder of all members is impractical, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of
21
the class, Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and Defendants
22
have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
23
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
24
162. In addition to Plaintiffs A.F.A., G.E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Faduma Olad Issa,
25
F.O.I., and S.O.I., there are numerous other similarly situated immigrant visa applicants from
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

38

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 40 of 48

1

2

3
Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Each of these individuals has had his or her
4
immigrant visa application suspended due to the EOs. 5 163. In addition to Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, Olad Issa Omar, and Jaffer
6
Akhlaq Hussain, there are numerous others who have petitioned for family members from Iran, ,
7
8 Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These similarly situated individuals or businesses are
9 seeking to have the beneficiaries of their visa petitions travel to the United States, either to be

10 reunited with family members or to join their workforce.

11
164. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of:

12

all nationals of countries designated by Section 2 of Executive Order 13780

13

(currently Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), who have applied for

14

or will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those nationals;

whose visa application adjudication has been or will be suspended or denied, or

15

who have been or will be denied the ability to seek entry into and/or enter the

United States, on the basis of Executive Order 13780.

16

17 165. Plaintiffs seek to represent the class and are adequate class representatives. All Plaintiffs

18 have been subject to harm caused by the EOs in that these EOs have suspended their immigrant

19 visa application adjudication. The Proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

20 impracticable. The number of individuals who are subject to/affected by the EOs is not known

21 with precision by Plaintiffs, but is easily ascertainable by Defendants, as will be addressed in

22 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
23
166. Common questions of law and fact bind the members of the Proposed Class. These
24
include, but are not limited to: whether the EOs violate the INA, the APA, and the U.S.
25
Constitution.
26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

39

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 41 of 48

1

2

3
167. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Proposed Class as a
4
whole. Defendants have subjected and will subject class members to the EOs absent relief by this
5
Court.
6
7 168. Plaintiffs know of no conflict between their interests and those of the Proposed Class. 8 The members of the Proposed Class are ascertainable and identifiable through notice and 9 discovery. In defending their own rights, the individual Plaintiffs will defend the rights of all
10 class members fairly and adequately.
11 169. Plaintiffs are represented in this case by counsel with deep knowledge of immigration
12 law and extensive experience litigating class actions and complex cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys

13 have the requisite level of expertise to adequately prosecute this case on their behalf and on

14 behalf of the Proposed Class.

15 170. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to each member of the Proposed

16 Class by subjecting Plaintiffs and class members to the EOs.

17 171. A class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication

18 of this controversy because joinder of all members of the class is impracticable.

19

20

CAUSES OF ACTION

21

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act
22

23 172. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

24 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

40

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 42 of 48

1

2

3
173. Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A),
4
expressly provides for the non-discriminatory issuance of immigrant visas; it mandates that, with
5
limited exceptions not relevant here, “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be
6
7 discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, 8 nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” 9 174. Section 1152(a)(1)(A) was intended to protect the interests of both U.S. citizen and
10 lawful permanent resident immigrant visa petitioners as well as immigrant visa applicants or
11 holders.

12 175. The EOs discriminate against immigrant visa applicants or holders on the basis of their

13 “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,” and therefore are discriminatory and violate

14 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).

15

COUNT TWO

16

Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the

Administrative Procedure Act

17
176. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

18
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
19
177. Defendants’ suspension of the adjudication and issuance of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas,
20
and/or invalidation or revocation of validly issued immigrant visas pursuant to either EO are
21
discriminatory actions that violate 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152(a)(1)(A) and 1201(i).
22
178. Defendants’ actions in suspending the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas, and/or
23

invalidating or revoking already issued immigrant visas are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
24

25 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power,

26 privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

41

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 43 of 48

1

2

3
statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the
4
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
5

6

COUNT THREE

Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361

7
179. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the

8
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

9
180. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits the government from denying issuance of immigrant
10
visas “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”
11

181. Pursuant to the EOs, Defendants have suspended, and will suspend again, adjudications
12

and issuance of and/or invalidated or revoked Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas on the basis of their
13

“nationality, place of birth, or place or residence.”
14

15 182. Defendants’ unlawful adherence to the EOs—through their continuing refusal to

16 adjudicate and issue immigrant visas or treat as valid existing immigrant visas—violates the

17 government’s clear, nondiscretionary obligation to adjudicate immigrant visa applications and

18 issue immigrant visas in a non-discriminatory manner.

19

COUNT FOUR

Violation of Fifth Amendment –Equal Protection
20

183. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the
21

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
22

23 184. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all

24 individuals due process of the laws, which includes a guarantee of equal protection.

25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

42

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 44 of 48

1

2

3
185. The EOs discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their nationality and/or place of
4
birth without sufficient justification, and therefore violate the equal protection component of the
5
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
6
7 186. Additionally, the EOs were substantially motivated by animus toward—and have a

8 disparate effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due

9 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

10

COUNT FIVE

(Establishment Clause, First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

11

(Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, Olad Issa Omar

12

and Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain Against All Defendants)

13 187. Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, Olad Issa Omar and Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain

14 repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding

15 paragraphs as if fully set forth herein
16
188. The EOs violate the Establishment Clause by singling out Muslims for disfavored
17
treatment and granting special preference to non-Muslims. They are neither justified by, nor
18
closely fitted to, any compelling governmental interest. The EOs uniquely disfavor Muslims and
19
burden Plaintiffs and proposed class members, based on religious bias, with discriminatory
20
treatment, inability to enter the United States and stigma.
21
189. The purpose of EOs is not secular and their principal effect is to inhibit religion. They
22
were intended to mark Muslims for disfavored treatment. By singling out and barring visa
23
issuance for applicants from six predominantly Muslim nations, EO2’s operation will have the
24
25 intended effect of limiting the ability of Muslims to immigrate to the United States and further

26 stigmatizing Islam as disfavored by the U.S. government, harming Plaintiffs, proposed class

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

43

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 45 of 48

1

2

3
members, Muslims living in the U.S., and potential immigrants abroad discouraged from seeking
4
admission.
5

6

COUNT SIX

Violation of the Fifth Amendment – Due Process

7

(Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, Olad Issa Omar

and Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain Against All Defendants)
8

9 190. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the
10 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
11 191. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
12 provides that “[n]o person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
13 of law.”
14
192. Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, and Olad Issa Omar and Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain
15
have a constitutionally protected liberty interests in their family life.
16
193. At a minimum, due process protects individuals against arbitrary government action,
17
including actions that do not adhere to the constraints that Congress has imposed or the facts may
18
dictate.
19
194. Defendants’ actions in suspending the adjudication of their immigrant visas taken
20
pursuant to the EOs, violate the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth
21
Amendment.
22

23

24

25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

44

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 46 of 48

1

2

3
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class respectfully pray that
5
this Court grant the following relief:
6

7

a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

8

b. Certify the case as a class action as proposed herein;

9

c. Appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the class;

10

d. Declare Section 3(c) of EO1 and Sections 1(f), 2 and 3 of EO2 to be contrary to the

11 INA and the Constitution;

12

e. Issue an order enjoining and restraining Defendants from applying Sections 1(f), 2 and

13 3 of EO2 to Plaintiffs and proposed class members;

14

f. Award Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice

15 Act, and any other applicable statute or regulation; and

16

g. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

45

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 47 of 48

1

2

3

Respectfully submitted this 10th of March, 2017, by:

4
s/Matt Adams
5 Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

Mary Kenney, admitted pro hac vice

6 s/Glenda Aldana

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, admitted pro hac vice

7 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987 Melissa Crow, admitted pro hac vice

8 s/Maria Lucia Chavez

Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826
9

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200

10 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 507-7512

11 98104 (206) 957-8611

(202) 742-5619 (fax)

(206) 587-4025 (fax)
12

13 Trina Realmuto, admitted pro hac vice

14 Kristin Macleod-Ball, admitted pro hac vice

15 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 16 OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 17 Boston, MA 02108
(617) 227-9727 18 (617) 227-5495 (fax)
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

46

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 52 Filed 03/10/17 Page 48 of 48

1

2

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

4 I hereby certify that on March 10, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the

5

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record for all Defendants. With respect to new Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection

6 and the Attorney General, current counsel for Defendants, Stacy Young, has advised that she will

not accept service for the agency. Therefore, along with a copy of the amended complaint and

7 second motion for class certification, I arranged for personal delivery of these documents and

corresponding proposed orders to:
8

9
United States Attorney’s Office

10

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271
11
as well as the mailing of these documents by U.S. certified mail to:

12

13

U.S. Attorney General

14

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

15

Washington, DC 20530-0001

16
and
17
18
19

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of the Chief Counsel
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20229

20
Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 10, 2017.
21

22

s/ Matt Adams

23

Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

24

25

26

27 AMENDED COMPLAINT—CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

28 Case No. 2:17-cv-135-JLR

47

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 27

Honorable James L. Robart
1

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10
Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor;
11 Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor;
Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh 12 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma
13 Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals
14 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

15

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

17 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
18 General of the United States; U.S. 19 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of 21 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 22 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 23 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting
24
Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE 25 DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, 26 Acting Director of National Intelligence,
27
Defendants.
28

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 10, 2017
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

EMERGENCY MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 27

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

This Court already has enjoined Defendants from giving effect to Executive Order 13769,

3 “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” 82 F.R. 8977 (Feb.

4 1, 2017) (EO1), seeking to ban nationals of seven predominantly Muslim countries from

5 obtaining visas or entering the United States on previously issued visas. See Washington v.

6
Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141-JLR, Dkt. 52 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017); see also Washington v.
7
Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017). Despite Defendants’
8
continued public statements that they have the authority to take the actions enjoined by the
9
Court, they have withdrawn their appeal of the injunction and, instead, issued a new executive
10
order (EO2) with the same name and substance.1 Indeed, Defendants admit that the purpose of
11
these actions is to avoid the legal findings entered by this Court while at the same time seeking to
12
replicate the substance of the initial executive order. Accordingly, the plaintiffs in Washington
13
have asked this Court to clarify that the nationwide preliminary injunction applies with equal
14
15 force to the actions proscribed in the second executive order. Washington, No. 2:17-cv-141-JLR,

16 Dkt. 113 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2017)

17

If the Court does not agree with the plaintiffs in Washington, and does not immediately

18 issue an order clarifying that the previously granted injunction applies to the second executive

19 order, Plaintiffs and proposed class members face immediate irreparable harm on March 16,

20 2017, the order’s effective date. For this reason, Plaintiffs now move for a temporary restraining

21 order, along with preliminary injunctive relief, requesting that this Court schedule a hearing for 22 either March 14, 2017 or March 15, 2017, so that Plaintiffs have the opportunity to seek redress 23 before Defendants resume their unlawful conduct.2
24

25
1

Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, 82

26 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017).

2

On March 7, 2017, counsel for the parties conducted a telephonic status conference pursuant to FRCP

27 26(f). Counsel for Plaintiffs advised counsel for Defendants that Plaintiffs would file a motion for a temporary

restraining order along with an amended complaint no later than Friday, March 10, 2017, and would request a

28 hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order on either Tuesday, March 14, or Wednesday, March 15.

Counsel for Defendants did not object to those dates. See Second Declaration of Matt Adams (Adams Decl.) ¶3.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

1

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 27

II. BACKGROUND
1
As a Presidential candidate, Defendant Trump championed an explicit Muslim ban,
2
“calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our
3
country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”3 When questioned about how this
4
would work in practice, Defendant Trump said that customs officials “would [ask a prospective
5
immigrant], are you Muslim?” and if the person said yes, they would not be allowed into the
6
country.4 When asked whether he believed that “Islam is at war with the U.S.,” Defendant
7
Trump responded “I think Islam hates us. . . . [W]e can’t allow people coming into this country
8
who have this hatred of the United States and of people who are not Muslim.”5 Soon after,
9
Defendant Trump asserted that there was “no way” he would allow Muslims to “flow in” to the
10
United States.6 Subsequently, Defendant Trump linked a proposed nationality-based
11
immigration ban to Islam by claiming that “[w]e are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into
12
the West through a failed immigration system” and singled out immigration of Muslims as a
13
key problem.7 He later declared that “Our way of life is under threat by Radical Islam.”8
14
Following his election, Defendant Trump surrounded himself with advisors who had
15
made public statements about being at war with Islam. In 2007, current White House Senior
16
Policy Advisor Stephen Miller, then co-founder and President of the Terrorism Awareness
17
Project, wrote in the organization’s founding statement that America was in a “war against the
18
Islamic jihad” and “its religion of terror,” and urged students to “mobilize support for the
19

20
3

Donald J. Trump, Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 2015), available at

21 https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration.

Three days later, after British citizens responded to the proposed Muslim ban with a petition to block Defendant

22 Trump from entering the United Kingdom, he responded by tweeting repeatedly about the United Kingdom’s

“massive Muslim problem.” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Dec 10, 2015, 07:49 AM),

23 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/674934005725331456.

4

Nick Gass, Trump Not Bothered by Comparisons to Hitler, Politico (Dec. 8, 2015),

24 https://goo.gl/IkBzPO.

5

Theodore Schleifer, Donald Trump: “I think Islam hates us,” CNN (Mar. 10, 2016),

25 http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/.

6

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Mar. 22, 2016, 09:59 PM),

26 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/712473816614772736.

7

Donald J. Trump Addresses Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security, Donald Trump Campaign

27 (June 13, 2016), available at http://bit.ly/1YmzAqO (criticizing U.S. government for admitting “100,000

immigrants from the Middle East and many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East”).

28 8

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (July 25, 2016, 10:50 PM),

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758872422028148740.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

2

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 27

1 defense of America and the civilization of the West.”9 Current White House Chief Strategist 2 Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News and chief strategist for the Trump Campaign, 3 stated in the past that “Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission”10 and

4 that “we are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism;” he previously urged Catholics 5 to recall “the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam.”11 Both Bannon 6 and Miller reportedly played critical roles in creating EO1.12

7

On January 27, 2017, Defendant Trump signed EO1 suspending visa adjudications and

8 banning entry of individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya,
9 Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) for 90 days to investigate visa screening requirements, with
10 limited exceptions not relevant here. EO1. The text of EO1 prioritizes refugees claiming
11 religious-based persecution who are religious minorities in their country of nationality,
12
effectively deprioritizing Muslim refugees from majority Muslim nations. EO1 § 5(b). While
13
signing EO1, Defendant Trump stated that he was “establishing new vetting measures to keep 14 radical Islamic terrorists out.”13 That same day, Defendant Trump agreed that the refugee
15
programs changes were made to prioritize Christians, and falsely stated that “If you were a
16
Muslim you could come in [as a refugee], but if you were a Christian, it was almost
17
impossible.”14 Two days later, Defendant Trump tweeted that “Christians in the Middle-East
18

19

20
9

Terrorism Awareness Project, About the Project (Feb. 3, 2007), available at

21 https://web.archive.org/web/20070203001212/http://www.terrorismawareness.org/about/3/about-the-project?pg=2

(last visited Mar. 10, 2017); see also Andrew Kaczynski and Chris Massie, In College, Trump Aide Stephen Miller

22 Led Controversial ‘Terrorism Awareness Project’ Warning of ‘Islamofascism,’ CNN (Feb. 15, 2017), available at

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/kfile-stephen-miller-terrorism-awareness.

23 10

Andrew Kaczynski, Steve Bannon in 2010: ‘Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of

submission, CNN (Feb. 1, 2017), available at http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/kfile-bannon-on-islam/.

24 11

Scott Shane, Stephen Bannon in 2014: We Are at War With Radical Islam, NY Times (Feb. 1, 2017).

12

Reuters, Bannon Driving Force Behind Trump’s Hardline Immigration Ban, Officials Say, Newsweek,

25 Jan. 30, 2017, available at http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve-bannon-immigration-ban-immigration-

muslim-550415.

26 13

Dan Merica, Trump Signs Executive Order to Keep Out ‘Radical Islamic Terrorists’, CNN (Jan. 30,

2017), available at http://cnn.it/2jeLXsW.

27 14

David Brody, Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority

As Refugees, CBN News (Jan. 27, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2kCqG8M; see also Michael D. Shear & Helene

28 Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries, NY Times (Jan. 27, 2017) (Defendant Trump

“ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.”); Dkt. 52 ¶96.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

3

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 5 of 27

1 have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”15

2

Also on January 29, 2017, Rudolph Giuliani, Defendant Trump’s advisor on

3 cybersecurity, confirmed that EO1 was intended to be a “legal” ban on Muslims: “So when

4 [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a

5 commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”16 Mr. Giuliani’s admission is
6
supported by Defendant Trump’s own explanation of EO1: “People were so upset when I used
7
the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word ‘Muslim.’ Remember this. And I’m okay with 8 that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”17
9
Following EO1, the government denied entry and revoked the visas of tens of thousands
10
of individuals.18 The government suspended all visa processing, cancelling consular interviews
11
and suspending adjudication of immigrant visa applications for thousands of proposed class
12
members from the seven countries, leaving them stranded abroad and indefinitely separated
13
from their families and employment.19 Plaintiffs and proposed class members suffered both
14
15 emotionally and financially from these separations and from the existing lack of certainty and
16 transparency in the immigrant visa process. See Dkts. 11–25.

17

On February 3, 2017, this Court issued a nationwide TRO in Washington, No. 2:17-cv-

18 141-JLR, enjoining and restraining Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of EO1. On February 4,

19 2017, the government appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit and moved to stay this 20 Court’s order. See Emergency Motion, Washington, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), ECF 14.20

21

22 15

Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Jan. 29, 2017, 07:04 AM)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858.

23 16

Amy B. Wang, Trump Asked for a “Muslim ban,” Giuliani Says—And Ordered a Commission to Do It

“legally,” Wash. Post (Jan. 29, 2017), available at http://wapo.st/2mscqBN.

24 17

Rebecca Shabad, Donald Trump Says He’s Expanding His Muslim Ban, CBS News (July 25, 2016),

available at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-hes-expanding-muslim-ban.

25 18

Mica Rosenberg & Lesley Wroughton, Trump’s travel ban has revoked 60,000 visas for now, Reuters

(Feb. 3, 2017), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN15I2EW.

26 19

See Dkt. 10-1 (stating, in a DOS announcement removed after the TRO in Washington issued, “Q: I have

an emergency. Can I request an expedited appointment? A: No. The Department of State may not conduct

27 immigrant visa interviews for any persons who are nationals of [the seven targeted countries] at this time.”).

20

Following the appeal, Defendant Trump stated on Twitter that “Courts must act fast” because “[t]he

28 threat from radical Islamic terrorism is very real.” Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Feb. 6, 2017,

09:49 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/828797801630937089.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

4

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 6 of 27

1 Before the Ninth Circuit, leading national security experts, including former Secretary of State

2 John Kerry, criticized EO1 as unmoored from legitimate national security claims. See Joint

3 Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright et al. at 2, Washington, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017),

4 ECF 28-2. After briefing and argument, on February 9, 2017, a panel of the Ninth Circuit

5 rejected the government’s motion to stay this Court’s decision. Washington, 847 F.3d 1151.21

6

On February 16, 2017, Defendant Trump stated that “only problem” with EO1 was a

7 “bad court” and a “bad decision” and that, had the roll-out of the order been scheduled over a

8 period of a month, “everything would have been perfect.” 22 He announced that a new executive

9 order would be issued and that it “is going to be very much tailored to what I consider a very,

10 very bad decision . . . . We can tailor the order to the decision to get just as much.”23 On

11 February 18, 2017, Defendant Trump stated: “I've taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic

12 terrorist[s] the hell out of our country.”24 On February 23, 2017, White House Press Secretary

13 Sean Spicer explained that the Administration would continue to litigate all pending challenges

14 to EO1, but that, in addition, it would issue a new executive order to “further address the

15 problems.”25 On February 21, 2017, White House Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller said

16 that the new order would have “mostly minor technical differences,” but that the “basic policies

17 [of EO1] are still going to be in effect.”26

18

21
19

Even a draft of Defendants’ own post-hoc review concluded that the ban was ineffective. See Vivian

Salama & Alicia A. Caldwell, AP Exclusive: DHS Report Disputes Threat from Banned Nations, ASSOC. PRESS

20 (Feb. 24, 2017), available at http://apne.ws/2ldKZtf.

22

Donald J. Trump, News Conference (Feb. 16, 2017), transcript available at http://nyti.ms/2kXcFW4.

23
21

Jennifer Jacobs, Trump Delaying Revamped Immigration Order Until Next Week, Official Says,

Bloomberg (Feb. 22, 2017), available at http://bloom.bg/2nnqHi6.

22 24

President Donald Trump, Remarks at Rally in Melbourne, Florida (Feb 18, 2017), available at

http://pbpo.st/2kLCMfr.

23 25

White House Press Briefing (Feb. 23, 2017), transcript available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-

press-office/2017/02/23/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2232017-15 (emphasis added). See also White

24 House Press Briefing (Feb. 21, 2017), transcript available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/2017/02/21/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2212017-13; White House Press Briefing (Feb. 22,

25 2017), transcript available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-

secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14.

26 26

The First 100 Days (Fox News television broadcast Feb. 21, 2017), transcript available at

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-tojudicial-ruling-rep-ron-

27 desantis; see also White House Press Gagle (Mar. 6, 2017), transcript available at

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer (including

28 statement of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer that “if you think about it, the principles of the executive

order remain the same”).

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

5

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 7 of 27

1

In response to the ongoing litigation, Defendant Trump issued EO2 on March 6, 2017,

2 incorporating many of the substantive provisions of EO1. Compare, e.g., EO1 § 3(c)

3 (“suspend[ing] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of [noncitizens

4 from seven specified countries] for 90 days from the date of this order” with limited exclusions

5 and an alleged waiver) with EO2 § 2(c) (“direct[ing] that the entry into the United States of

6 nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days” subject to limitations and exceptions

7 and an alleged waiver); see also EO2 §§ 1(c), (f). EO2, in relevant part, suspends visa issuance

8 of and entry of many nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen indefinitely,

9 and at a minimum for 90 days. EO §§ 1(f), 3(c). Moreover, §§ 2(d)-2(f) of the EO2 provides

10 that the government will not automatically lift the initial 90-day suspension period for any of

11 the targeted countries. Instead, these sections provide a complex, multi-step process for 12 determining what additional information-sharing each country must adopt to lift the ban.27

13 Notably, both EOs allege that a 90-day ban is necessary to review and determine what

14 additional information is needed for visa adjudications. Although that review period was not

15 previously enjoined, EO2 nonetheless resets the 90-day period and thereby extends the ban on

16 entry and visa issuance for nationals of the six countries. See EO2 § 2(c). Furthermore, like

17 EO1, EO2 targets nationals of the listed countries, including children and anyone who derived

18 citizenship but never resided there. See Dkt. 19 at 2.

19

Unlike EO1, EO2 contains certain exceptions as well as a “waiver” provision. The

20 “waiver” purportedly allows for visa issuance and entry upon a showing that: (1) the ban would

21 cause “undue hardship”; (b) the person is not a “threat to national security”; and (c) issuance and
22 entry would be in the “national interest.” EO2 § 2(c). There is no guidance on when or how
23 individuals are to apply for the waiver before a consular officer or Defendant Customs and
24
Border Protection (CBP), what constitutes “undue hardship,” or how to prove that entry is in the
25
“the national interest.” Additionally, given that all persons applying for an immigrant visa submit
26
detailed biographical histories regarding past residences, school, and employment, undergo
27

28
27

The six targeted countries will be unwilling or unable to complete this process. See Dkt. 52 ¶¶75-83.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

6

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 8 of 27

1 fingerprint and database checks, submit police reports, and may be the subject of a security

2 advisory opinion, it is unclear how they can further prove that they are not a security threat.

3 Indeed, the EO places the burden on the waiver applicant to prove a negative fact,
4 notwithstanding the lack of available evidence to do so. Considering that the premise of the EOs
5 is that, by simply being a national of one of the six countries, the individual is a national security
6
threat, the waiver provision imposes an almost insurmountable obstacle. Finally, notwithstanding
7
these flaws, even if one managed to figure out how to apply for a waiver and make a threshold
8
eligibility showing, the waiver is entirely dependent on the discretion of either the consular
9
officer or a CBP official.
10
III. ARGUMENT
11
A. STANDARD FOR OBTAINING PRELIMINARY RELIEF
12
To obtain a TRO or preliminary injunction (PI), the moving party must show that: (1) she
13
14 “is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) she “is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
15 preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in [her] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in 16 the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).28
17 The Ninth Circuit uses a balancing, or “sliding scale,” approach to evaluate TROs and PIs,

18 clarifying that, where the balance of equities weighs strongly in her favor, the moving party may

19 prevail if she shows that her claims raise serious legal questions and meets the remaining factors.

20 See, e.g., Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011).

21 “Under this approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a

22 stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Id. at 1131-32. Under

23 any test, Plaintiffs and the proposed class merit relief.

24

B. PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS MEMBERS MERIT A TEMPORARY

25

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

26
1. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Raise Their Claims.
27

28 28

The standards for TROs and PIs are substantially the same. See, e.g., Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v.

John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

7

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 9 of 27

1

Plaintiffs satisfy all requirements necessary to demonstrate standing. See Friends of the

2 Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envlt. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). The

3 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes suit if a plaintiff is “suffering legal wrong

4 because of agency action, or [was] adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the

5
meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Plaintiffs fall squarely within the zone of
6
interests protected by the laws governing the adjudication, issuance, and honoring of immigrant
7
visas, which require a non-discriminatory and constitutional application. See 8 U.S.C. §§
8
1152(a)(1); 1153; 1154; 1201; see also infra III.B.2.a. Thus, the interests they seek to protect
9
are within the zone of interests. Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397
10
U.S. 150, 153 (1970). Indeed, in appealing the injunction this Court issued in Washington,
11
Defendants’ counsel readily acknowledged that Plaintiffs and other individuals directly affected
12
by EO1 would have standing to challenge Defendants’ actions.29
13

14

Plaintiffs also have standing to raise their claims irrespective of their location. See

15 Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *24 (holding that “[t]he procedural protections

16 provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens” and

17 discussing cases); id. at *30-31 (acknowledging, but reserving consideration of, plaintiffs’

18 claim that EO1 was “intended to disfavor Muslims”); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373

19 F.3d 952, 974 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]the entry fiction does not preclude substantive constitutional

20 protection.”); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 484 (2004) (finding that “[t]he courts of the United

21 States have traditionally been open to nonresident [noncitizens]”).

22
2. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Claims.

23

Plaintiffs and proposed class members can show a strong probability of success on the

24
merits of their claims. However, they need only show “serious questions going to the merits,”

25
which abound in this case, because the “balance of hardships . . . tips sharply” in their favor and

26

27

28 29

See Feb. 7, 2017 Oral Argument, Washington, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir.), at 24:25-24:41, available at

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000010885.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 10 of 27

1 they show a likelihood of irreparable harm and that a TRO is in the public interest. Alliance for

2 the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. Under either inquiry, Plaintiffs can demonstrate that the

3 EOs, and their application and enforcement, would fly squarely in the face of the Constitution,
4 the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the APA.
5
a. Likelihood of Success on 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1), APA, and Mandamus Claims
6
Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that the EOs violate 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1),
7
that the suspension in visa adjudication and issuance that will result from its implementation
8
violates both this statute and the APA, and that mandamus relief is warranted. First, the EOs
9
violate § 1152(a)(1)(A), which bars discrimination in visa issuance based on, inter alia,
10
“nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Section 2 of EO2 violates the plain language
11
of the statute because it discriminates on the basis of nationality. See Consumer Product Safety
12
Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (“[T]he starting point for interpreting a
13
statute is the language of the statute itself.”). The EO broadly suspends regular visa issuance to
14
and entry30 of immigrant visa holders from six nations absent a visa issued before March 16,
15
16 2017. As with EO1, EO2 will result in the suspension of adjudication and issuance of immigrant
17 visas to nationals of those countries when it takes effect. See Adams Decl., Exh. A (advising visa
18 applicants to check for further guidance “before paying an MRV fee, scheduling an interview
19 appointment, or attending your interview”).31 Therefore, the EOs violate § 1152(a)(1) by using a

20 nationality-based classification that Congress expressly forbade. See Almero v. INS, 18 F.3d 757,

21 763 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he INS may not restrict eligibility to a smaller group of beneficiaries

22 than provided for by Congress”).

23

The EO also violates the congressional intent and the object and policy behind §

24

25 30

Plaintiffs challenge the bar on “entry” in that it prevents the lawful adjudication of their applications for

admission—they do not seek a guarantee that they will be admitted after an individualized inspection under lawful

26 constitutional and statutory standards. Cf. St. Cyr v. INS, 533 U.S. 289, 307 (2001) (acknowledging the

“distinction between eligibility for discretionary relief . . . and the favorable exercise of discretion”).

27 31

Following EO1, Defendants suspended the adjudication of immigrant visa applications. See Dkt. 10-1

(announcing temporary halt on scheduling appointments and processing of immigrant visa applications for banned

28 countries, and urging those with medical appointments to cancel them, as they results are “only valid for six (6)

months and we cannot predict when your visa interview will be rescheduled”).

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

9

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 11 of 27

1 1152(a)(1)(A)’s enactment. See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 407 (1991)

2 (noting that statutory interpretation includes consideration of the design of the statute and its

3 object and policy.). In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89–236, 79 Stat.
4 911 (1965), Congress enacted § 1152(a)(1) to repudiate the discriminatory national origins quota
5 system that previously had restricted immigration on the basis of national origin.32 See S. REP.
6
89-748, 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328, 3329 (1965) (noting that the “primary objective” of the 1965
7
Act was “the abolishment of the national origins quota system”); Fei Mei Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d
8
376, 377 (2d Cir. 2011) (summarizing the history of the national origins quota system); Haitian
9
Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. 442, 453 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (“[8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)]
10
manifested Congressional recognition that the maturing attitudes of our nation made
11
discrimination on [the listed] bases improper.”).
12
In 1995, the D.C. Circuit held that a State Department policy excluding Vietnamese
13
nationals from applying for visas in Hong Kong, rather than in their country of origin, violated 8
14
15 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)’s prohibition against nation origin discrimination. Legal Assistance for
16 Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 45 F.3d 469, 473
17 (D.C. Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, 104 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The court agreed
18 with the appellants that “this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw a

19 distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas,” rejected the appellees’ argument that

20 such a distinction could be justified by a rational basis, and concluded that “Congress has

21 unambiguously directed that no nationality-based discrimination shall occur.” Id. Subsequently,

22 Congress added subsection (B), which states that the provision does not limit the Secretary of
23 State’s authority to determine the procedures or location of immigrant visa processing. 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1152(a)(1)(B). Consequently, the D.C. Circuit upheld the State Department’s policy as it 25 applied only to the location of visa processing. Legal Assistance, 104 F.3d at 1352-53.
26
Here, § 1152(a)(1)(B) does not excuse the ban, both because the EOs represent the
27

28
32

Section 1152(a)(1) is the predecessor statute to current § 1152(a)(1)(A) and contains identical language.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

10

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 12 of 27

1 President’s policy (not the State Department’s, although the latter is implementing it), but more

2 importantly, because a suspension of visa issuance for nationals of these countries is not a mere

3 “determ[ination about] the procedures” or the location for visa processing. Instead, the EOs
4 categorically render all those subject to the ban ineligible to move forward with their visa
5 applications, not based on any individual determination, but instead, based on their nationality or
6
country of birth. All that is left then is for them to attempt to seek a limited, arduous, and
7 discretionary waiver. See supra Section II.33 But the existence of a possible waiver, does not in
8
any way refute the fact that Plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications are discriminated against on
9
the basis of their nationality or country of birth, in direct conflict with § 1152(a)(1).
10
Defendant Trump purportedly issued the EOs pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which
11
grants the Executive broad authority to suspend the entry of either “any [individual] aliens” or
12
“any class of aliens” into the United States. However, the President’s authority under § 1182(f)
13
is confined by statutory and constitutional limits. Statutory construction rules demonstrate that
14
§ 1182(f) cannot supersede the limitations created by Congress in 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
15
First, the plain language of the statute does not authorize a categorical suspension of all
16
“aliens” or “nationals” covered by the nondiscrimination provision in § 1152(a)(1)(A); rather,
17
in limiting that authority to “any alien” in the singular or “any class of aliens,” the statute
18
distinguishes between individuals or a subset of individuals, as compared to all individuals of a
19
particular nationality.34 Second, at the time Congress enacted § 1152(a), it is presumed to have
20
been aware of the authority conferred to the President in § 1182(f). See Lorillard v. Pons, 434
21
U.S. 575, 581 (1978) (“Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of the
22
interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute.”).
23
Thus, as it was aware of the President’s authority under § 1182(f), Congress presumably
24
intended § 1152(a)(1)(A) to act as a limit on that authority. Id.; cf. Radzanower v. Touche Ross
25

26
33

Even if a system for seeking waivers were developed and even if proposed class members, many of

27 whom are unrepresented, were able to navigate it and present evidence that they fall within the waiver categories

which are replete with ambiguous terms, they would still be subject to extra-statutory visa requirements applied on

28 a discriminatory basis. See supra Section II; infra Section III.B.3.

34

See Consumer Product Safety Commission, 447 U.S. at 108.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

11

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 13 of 27

1 & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 154 (1976) (“where provisions in [] two acts are in irreconcilable conflict,

2 the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one”)

3 (citation omitted). Third, § 1152(a)(1)(A) is narrower in scope than § 1182(f), and the more

4 specific provision must be given effect. See Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504,

5 524 (1989) (“A general statutory rule usually does not govern unless there is no more specific

6 rule.”). Pursuant to § 1152(a)(1)(A), the President can no more suspend entry by individuals

7 from the targeted six countries than he can suspend issuance of immigrant visas to all female or 8 all non-Caucasian applicants.35 Similarly, 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) does not authorize this. That

9 statute, which governs certain entries and departures, serves to regulate conduct but does not

10 provide independent authority to institute any type of categorical ban. Thus, § 1185(a) is

11 narrower than § 1152(a)(1)(A) and must be read as subject to the latter’s non-discrimination

12 limitations.

13

The plain language of, and congressional intent in enacting, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) also

14 do not sanction discrimination in issuing immigrant visas based on national origin. That statute

15 relates only to which countries may qualify for the “visa waiver” program, which allows
16 nationals of certain countries to temporarily enter the United States without a nonimmigrant visa.
17 By its terms, it is limited to nonimmigrant visas, not the immigrant (i.e., permanent) visas at
18 issue here. Thus, there is no inconsistency between § 1152(a)(1)(A) and § 1187(a)(12).
19
Moreover, nationals who benefit from the visa waiver program do not submit any visa
20
application and, accordingly, are not vetted before admission. Statements regarding the
21
instability of the governments in the targeted countries, see EO2 § 1(e), could be relevant to
22

23
35

Notably, not a single President has invoked § 1182(f) to authorize such a broad and discriminatory

24 nationality-based suspension of entry. The closest analogue to Defendant Trump’s EOs was President Reagan’s

1986 temporary suspension of Cuban immigration in response to a diplomatic dispute with the Cuban government.

25 Proclamation 5517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30470 (1986). That proclamation, however, was never challenged as violating §

1152(a)(1)(A) and it included, inter alia, a carve out for all immediate relative visa petitions and certain other

26 family-based visa petitions. Moreover, although previous presidents have invoked § 1182(f) in over forty

instances, these proclamations have been narrowly tailored to address specific individuals whose entry would be

27 inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy interests. See, e.g., Proclamation 5887, 53 Fed. Reg. 43184 (1988)

(suspending the entry of officers of the Nicaraguan government or the Sandinista National Liberation Front);

28 Executive Order 13694, 80 Fed. Reg. 18077 (2015) (suspending the entry of persons determined to have engaged

in “significant malicious cyber-enabled activities”).

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

12

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 14 of 27

1 determinations regarding admissions to the U.S. without any visa application and screening, but

2 do not support a bar on the immigrant visa process, through which all applicants are thoroughly

3 screened through several security and medical clearance processes. See Dkt. 52 ¶¶38-43.

4

Second, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that Defendants’ implementation36

5 of the nationality-based classification will violate the APA’s prohibition against unlawful and
6
unconstitutional government conduct, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D), thus creating a “legal
7
wrong” and an agency action that “adversely affect[s] or aggrieve[s]” which entitles Plaintiffs
8
and proposed class members to relief under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Not only is Defendants’
9
disregard for § 1152(a)(1)(A) “not in accordance with law,” “in excess of statutory
10
jurisdiction,” and “without observance of procedure required by law,” it is “contrary to
11
constitutional right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D); see infra Sections II.B.2.b and d.
12
Third, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
13
Mandamus relief is warranted if “(1) the individual’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the official’s
14
15 duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly proscribed as to be free from doubt; and (3)
16 no other adequate remedy is available.” Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997).

17 Plaintiffs have a clear claim to nondiscriminatory adjudication and issuance of their immigrant

18 visas; Defendants’ duties to lawfully adjudicate, issue, and honor immigrant visas are plainly set

19 forth in the INA, implementing regulations, Foreign Affairs Manual, and are further governed by

20 the Constitution.

21

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[m]andamus may not be used to instruct an official how

22 to exercise discretion unless that official has ignored or violated ‘statutory or regulatory 23 standards delimiting the scope or manner in which such discretion can be exercised.’” Silveyra v. 24 Moschorack, 989 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). In such an event,
25

26 36

Plaintiffs bring the APA claim against all Defendants other than Defendant Trump. They raise their

separate claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) against all Defendants; for this claim, the APA serves to waive

27 sovereign immunity only. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 510 n.4 (1999)

(Souter, J., dissenting) (“This waiver of immunity [under § 702] is not restricted by the requirement of final

28 agency action that applies to suits under the [APA].”) (citing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870

F.2d 518, 523-26 (9th Cir. 1989)).

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 15 of 27

1 “mandamus is appropriate.” Id. at 1014. Defendants have violated the non-discrimination

2 requirement in § 1152(a)(1)(A) and exceeded the scope of their discretionary authority to

3 determine procedures and locations for immigrant visas issuance under 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(B)
4 and to suspend entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Absent intervention by this Court, Defendants
5 will, contrary to their duties, leave Plaintiffs and class members in legal limbo potentially
6
indefinitely, and at a minimum for 90 days. EO §§ 1(f), 3(c).
7
Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their statutory claims.
8
b. Likelihood of Success on Equal Protection Claim
9
Plaintiffs also are likely to succeed on their claim that the EOs violate the guarantee of
10
equal protection under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it suffers from the
11
same underlying nationality discrimination and religious animus as EO1. Executive orders are
12
subject to constitutional limits. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
13
579, 587-89 (1952) (holding that the President acted without constitutional power by issuing an
14
15 order directing the Commerce Secretary to take over the nation’s steel mills); Cornelius v.
16 NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (analyzing whether an executive
17 order violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights); cf. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683
18 (1974) (President, as head of the executive branch, is not above the law).

19

On its face and when applied, Section 2(c) of the EO2 discriminates on the basis of

20 nationality by singling out, and categorical banning, nationals of six countries. Moreover,

21 although EO2 is more artfully drafted than EO1 and attempts to expressly disclaim EO1’s

22 blatant discrimination against Islam, EO2 indisputably stems from the same religious animus
23 underlying EO1. See Section II. Nationality and religion are “suspect classifications,” so claims
24 of discrimination on these bases are subject to strict scrutiny, and such classifications must be 25 narrowly tailored and justified by a compelling government interest. See Ball v. Massanari, 254
26
F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 2001); Christian Sci. Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. City of San
27
Francisco, 784 F.2d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d
28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 16 of 27

1 277, 301 (3d Cir. 2015). To prevail, Plaintiffs must show that the EOs either are discriminatory

2 on their face or that discriminatory animus against a protected class was a “motivating factor.”

3 Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). The EOs fails
4 under a strict scrutiny test because: 1) they discriminate, on their face, based on nationality; and
5 2) animus against Muslims was a motivating factor.
6
Under well-established equal protection law, courts may look behind a facially neutral
7
law, or in this case the EOs, to determine whether animus inhered in its passage. See, e.g.,
8
Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *30-31; Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro.
9
Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–268 (1977). In examining whether a facially neutral
10
action impermissibly targets a religion, a court may consider “the historical background of the
11
decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official
12
policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous
13
statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
14
15 Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540 (1993) (summarizing Village of Arlington Heights).
16 As detailed in Section II, consideration of the historical background of EO1 and EO2, the
17 events leading up to EO1’s revocation—namely, this Court’s and the Ninth Circuit’s injunction
18 decisions in Washington—as well as statements made by the President and his affiliates,

19 strongly support the conclusion that religious animus against Islam undergirds EO2.

20

Furthermore, even if the Court were to apply a rational basis analysis, Plaintiffs are

21 likely to prevail. See, e.g., Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001) (evaluating whether

22 “‘[l]ine-drawing’ decisions made by . . . the President in the context of immigration and
23 naturalization . . . are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose”); United States v.
24 Barajas-Guillen, 632 F.2d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 1980) (applying rational basis review in an 25 immigration case because no “suspect classification”—which would “demand” strict
26
scrutiny—was involved); Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 336 (9th Cir. 2011)
27
(same). Where a government’s proposed solution to a problem is discrimination against a
28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 17 of 27

1 disfavored class and all evidence shows that such a solution is “ludicrously ineffectual,” the

2 government has not acted rationally. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 (1982) (“[W]e think it

3 clear that ‘[charging] tuition to undocumented children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual

4 attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration’”) (internal citation omitted).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their equal protection argument.

6
c. Likelihood of Success on Establishment Clause Claim
7
U.S. citizen and LPR Plaintiffs and class members are likely to succeed in their claim that
8 Defendants violated the Establishment Clause. See U.S. Const. amend. I.37 “The clearest
9
command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially
10
preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). Where the government
11
acts to disfavor one religion by, inter alia, placing “burdens . . . on particular denominations,” its
12
actions are subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 246-47, 254. In this determination, “[i]t is well
13
established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered.”
14

15 Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *30; Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (finding facially

16 neutral statute invalid based on legislative history indicating it disfavored particular

17 denominations). EO2, which is an express continuation of EO1, revoking EO1 only on the date it

18 becomes effective, uniquely disfavors Muslims and burdens Plaintiffs and proposed class

19 members, based on religious bias, with discriminatory treatment, inability to enter the United

20 States and stigma; Defendants cannot show that it is closely fitted to a compelling government

21 interest. See supra Section III.B.2b. Thus, the EOs cannot survive strict scrutiny.

22

Even if the Court finds that the EOs do not “grant[] a denominational preference,”

23 Larson, 456 U.S. at 246, Plaintiffs nonetheless are likely to succeed on their claim, because the

24 EOs cannot survive the three-part test for evaluating compliance with the Establishment Clause 25 in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). A government action must first “have a secular . . .
26
purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits
27

28 37

The Ninth Circuit noted, in its analysis of EO1, that the plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim

“present[ed] significant constitutional questions.” Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *31.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

16

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 18 of 27

1 religion; finally, the [action] must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with

2 religion.’” 403 U.S. at 612-13 (citations omitted). The EOs fail, especially as to the first two

3 elements.

4

First, the purpose of the EOs is not secular. Despite the shoddy façade with which

5 Defendants now cover their motivations, EO2 is, in relevant substantive part, a nearly-identical
6
continuation of EO1; both were intended to mark Muslims for disfavored treatment. See Dkt. 52
7
¶¶84-98; supra Section II. No country with a different religious majority, regardless of political
8
instability or lack of cooperation with the U.S. government, is similarly targeted. See, e.g., id. at
9
¶¶105 (discussing comments of Defendant Kelly that other countries, “not all of them Muslim
10
countries, not all of them in the Middle East that have questionable vetting procedures” not
11
included in the ban). This is impermissible despite the different stated purpose; “the secular
12
purpose required has to be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious
13
objective.” McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 864 (2005). As a result, courts must
14
15 “refuse to turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v.

16 Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 315 (2000); id. at 309 (evaluating “evolution” of an allegedly secular policy).

17 Even if the Court would find EO2, considered apart from EO1 and Defendants’ history of

18 seeking a “Muslim ban,” constitutional, Plaintiffs can still succeed on the merits of their

19 Establishment Clause claim. “[T]he same government action may be constitutional if taken in the

20 first instance and unconstitutional if it has a sectarian heritage.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866 n.14.

21 This Court should look to “external signs that show up in the text, legislative history, and

22 implementation of” and “the specific sequence of events leading to” EO2. Id. at 862 (internal
23 quotation marks omitted); see also Aziz v. Trump, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20889, *18-28 (E.D.
24 Va. Feb. 13, 2017) (holding that plaintiffs challenging EO1 were likely succeed on 25 Establishment Clause claim that the Order did not have a secular purpose based on the
26
“‘sequence of events’ leading to this specific EO and the dearth of evidence indicating a national
27
security purpose”).
28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

17

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 19 of 27

1

Second, the principal effect of the EOs is to inhibit religion. By singling out and barring

2 visa issuance for applicants from six predominantly Muslim nations, the EOs’ operation will

3 have the intended effect of limiting the ability of Muslims to immigrate to the United States and
4 further stigmatizing Islam as disfavored by the U.S. government. See Section II. Such stigma will
5 not only harm Plaintiffs and proposed class members, but likely will harm Muslims living in the
6
United States, and potential immigrants abroad discouraged from seeking admission. Again, the
7
Court should not undertake this analysis in a vacuum, but “from the point of view of a reasonable
8
observer who is informed . . . [and] familiar with the history of the [EO] at issue.” Vasquez v Los
9
Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1256 (9th Cir. 2007); id. at 1257 (considering whether an act is
10
“one of hostility towards religion”).
11
d. Likelihood of Success on Due Process Claim
12
Plaintiffs also are likely to succeed on their due process claim that the EOs deprive U.S.
13
14 citizen and LPR Plaintiffs and proposed class members of their Fifth Amendment liberty
15 interests in marriage, family life, and child-rearing. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12
16 (1967); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974); Troxel v. Granville,
17 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality op.); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.
18 2008).38 Proposed class members that are U.S. based-employers similarly have constitutionally
19 protected interests.39

20

Congress has made clear that immigrant visas must be adjudicated, issued, and honored

21 in a manner that does not discriminate based upon national origin, country of birth, or religion.40

22 At a minimum, due process protects against discriminatory action that deprives Plaintiffs and

23

24 38

Furthermore, “the foremost policy underlying the granting of [immigrant preference] visas under our

immigration laws …[is] the reunification of families.” Lau v. Kiley, 563 F.2d 543, 547 (2d Cir. 1977); see also

25 Kaliski v. Dist. Dir. of Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 620 F.2d 214, 217 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[T]he humane

purpose [of the INA] is to reunite families.”).

26 39

See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 342 (2010) (First Amendment protection extends to

corporations); Minneapolis & S. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 28 (1889) (“[C]orporations can invoke the

27 benefits of provisions of the Constitution and laws which guarantee to persons the enjoyment of property, or afford

to them the means for its protection, or prohibit legislation injuriously affecting it.”).

28 40

EO2 discriminates on the basis of national origin and on the basis of religion, and is at least partially

motivated by an animus against a religion and nationalities. See supra Sections II, III.B.2.b, III.B.2.c.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

18

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 20 of 27

1 proposed class members of their protected liberty interests without regard for Congressionally
2 imposed constraints, see supra Section III.B.2.a, and the constitutional boundaries imposed by
3 the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal
4 protection, see supra Sections III.B.2.b, III.B.2.c. See, e.g., Del Monte Dunes v. Monterey, 920
5
F.2d 1496, 1508 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We cannot say at this stage of the proceeding that the actions
6
of the city council . . . were not arbitrary and irrational and, thus, a violation of appellants’
7
substantive due process rights.”); Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 544 (1950) (“Whatever
8
the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is
9
concerned.”).
10
In addition, Section 2 of EO2 creates a presumptive categorical bar to immigrant visa
11
processing: it is not individualized and is potentially permanent. See Section II. Plaintiffs have
12
had little advanced notice of the bar. Id. Immigrant visa applicants who, as an immutable fact,
13
14 are nationals of the six designated countries, have no opportunity to respond to, let alone refute,
15 application of this categorical bar. Indeed, for the reasons set forth in Section II, the alleged
16 ability to seek a waiver under EO2 Section 3(c) does not eliminate Plaintiffs’ due process
17 injuries; first, they indisputably face harm from the categorical and substantive bar that, at a

18 minimum, causes additional separation; second, they must satisfy a heightened showing to even

19 qualify for the waiver; and third, they must contend with a waiver process that is critically

20 flawed (e.g., it is based upon nebulous standards imposing on the applicant the responsibility of

21 disproving a negative in order to overcome a presumption) and entirely dependent on the

22 discretion of either the consular officer or a CBP official.

23

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their due process argument.

24

3. Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent

25

This Court’s Intervention.

26

Plaintiffs and proposed class members face more than simply the “possibility of

27 irreparable harm.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Rather, they are able to demonstrate the likelihood of

28 immediate, concrete, irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. See Leiva-Perez v.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

19

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 21 of 27

1 Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that “separation from family members,
2 medical needs, and potential economic hardship” are important irreparable harm factors)
3 (internal quotation marks omitted); Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)
4 (stating that “the deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable
5
injury”) (quotation marks omitted); Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d
6
290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“[W]here a movant alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause,
7
this is sufficient, without more, to satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purpose of the
8
preliminary injunction determination.”).
9
Defendants’ decision to suspend adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas will cause
10
immediate, irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and proposed class members who are parents, spouses,
11
and children who seek to bring their family members to live with them in the United States, as
12
well as employers in a competitive environment and professionals sought by U.S. companies.
13
14 See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶12-14 (U.S. citizen separated from three children); Fischer Decl. ¶9 (U.S.
15 citizen unable to live together with her husband); Dkt. 11 ¶6 (U.S. citizen facing additional
16 delays in adjudication of his wife’s immigrant visa after two and a half years of waiting); Dkt. 17
17 ¶6 (LPR being prevented from reuniting with his wife and seven-month-old baby); Dkt. 14 ¶¶16-

18 18 (LPR mother facing potentially indefinite separation from son in war-torn Syria); Dkt. 25.

19 ¶13-14 (U.S. citizen mother facing uncertain separation from seven-year-old son in Somalia).

20

Plaintiffs and proposed class members will face harm from immediate and ongoing

21 discrimination and constitutional violations. See supra Section III.B.2; cf. Omar Decl. ¶18 (“We

22 are Muslims. . . . We have the right to be with our families too.”); Dkt. 11 ¶8 (“[A]s a citizen, I

23 am concern[ed] about my constitutional rights. . . .”); Dkt. 25 ¶13 (“How do you tell a 7-year-old
24
little boy that, ‘no, you cannot come to live with your father, little sister and mother because you
25
have a passport of a certain country?’”). They will suffer stress, emotional trauma, and
26
dangerous living conditions. See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶16 (stating he “could not sleep for two
27
nights” after learning of EO2); Fischer Decl. ¶9 (considering need to “abandon [her] life” in the
28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

20

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 22 of 27

1 United States due to family separation); Dkt. 11 ¶8 (detailing inability to focus and “trouble

2 sleeping” and expressing concern for his wife, who lives alone in Sudan); Dkt. 14 ¶¶10, 15-17

3 (expressing concern for her son’s safety the longer he remains in Syria, because the “situation in

4 Syria is so unstable that my son has even been kidnapped”). They will face increased financial

5
burdens, due to managing multiple households and deprivation of academic and professional

6
opportunities. See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶¶15-16; Oskouian Decl. ¶¶11-12; Dkt. 11 ¶9; Dkt. 17 ¶7;
7
Dkt. 14 ¶10. Not least, they face the prospect of a prolonged, potentially indefinite separation
8
from their family members, including those who are sick or in danger in their current locations.
9
See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶17; Oskouian Decl. ¶12; Dkt. 11 ¶¶3, 10; Dkt. 17 ¶¶3-4, 7; Dkt. 14 ¶16
10
(explaining that “everyday” she lives with the fear of “not knowing if [she] will ever see [her]
11
child again”); see also Dkts. 12-13, 15-16, 18-24 (detailing harm faced by U.S. citizens, LPRs,
12

and businesses due to separation from family members and employees when EO1 was in effect).
13

14

These harms are not negated by the fact that Plaintiffs and proposed class members have

15 applied for but not yet received visas. Pursuant to EO2, Defendants are suspending the

16 adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas, thus prolonging and increasing the harm that

17 Plaintiffs and proposed class members experience based on family separation. See EO2 § 5

18 (setting out a process for identifying and adopting additional vetting procedures for visa

19 adjudications). Absent the EOs, Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ cases could move

20 forward with interviews, written submissions, and adjudication. See, e.g., Omar Decl. ¶11

21 (interview scheduled for March 13, 2017); Fischer Decl. ¶ 7 (interview already conducted);

22 Oskouian Decl. ¶8 (interview scheduled for March 21, 2017).

23

Nor does the allegedly limited length of the visa issuance and entry ban alleviate the

24
irreparable harm Plaintiffs and proposed class members face. Even delays of months are critical

25
where parents are separated from children or couples are separated, especially where children or

26
spouses are stranded in war-torn countries where their very safety is in constant jeopardy.
27
Moreover, the “temporary pause,” EO2 § 1(f), in visa issuance is likely to last far longer than 90
28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

21

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 23 of 27

1 days. EO2 provides for a potentially indefinite ban on entry and visa issuance. See Section II; see

2 also Dkt. 52 ¶¶74-83. The risk of an indefinite ban is especially grave for nationals of countries

3 without a fully functioning central government, such as Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, or

4 without diplomatic relations with the United States, such as Iran and Syria, for whom it would be

5
challenging to respond to Defendants’ requests for information. Id. Notably, while EO2’s 120-

6
day suspension of the Refugee Admissions Program includes mandatory language resuming
7
processing after 120 days, see EO § 6 (providing that refugee travel and adjudication of certain
8
refugee applications “shall resume” after 120 days), § 2(c) contains no similar language
9
regarding mandatory resumption of visa adjudication and issuance. Such additional, potentially
10
indefinite, delay in the adjudication of their immigrant visa applications will result in irreparable
11
harm to the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members, prolonging their separation from
12

family members, safety, healthcare, and professional opportunities.
13

14

Finally, the “waiver” provision included in EO2 does not alleviate or make less

15 immediate the harm to Plaintiffs and proposed class members. Even if some ambiguous,

16 discretionary waiver is granted to some applicants, those applicants will still have experienced

17 further delay and separation. In addition, there is no guarantee or even likelihood that all or most

18 will be granted the waiver. See supra Section II; see also Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS, at

19 *33 (criticizing EO1 “waiver” for failing to explain “how would the ‘national interest’ be

20 determined, who would make that determination, and when?”). Ultimately, a separate and

21 unequal system for visa applications based on discriminatory motive will still cause irreparable

22 harm as the result of constitutional violations. See supra Sections III.A.1. b, c, d.

23

It is well recognized that the types of harm Plaintiffs and proposed class members will

24
experience are of an irreparable nature so as to warrant a grant of preliminary injunctive relief.

25
See, e.g., Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of California, 840 F.2d 701, 709-10 (9th Cir.

26
1988) (holding that “emotional and psychological” injury, including injury arising from
27
discriminatory treatment, can constitute irreparable harm); Arizona Dream Act Coalition v.
28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

22

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 24 of 27

1 Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that “intangible injuries . . . [which]

2 generally lack an adequate legal remedy” and loss of opportunity to pursue professional

3 advancement can constitute irreparable harm). This Court already has recognized that adverse

4 effects on “employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom of travel” are factors

5
relevant to the question of whether “immediate and irreparable injury” is probable. Washington,

6
2:17-cv-141-JLR, Dkt. 52 at 4 (TRO). Preliminary injunctive relief is thus appropriate.

7

4. The Public Interest and Balance of Equities Weigh Heavily in Favor of

8

Granting Injunctive Relief.

9

The public interest and balance of equities factors “merge” when, as in this case, the

10 government is a party. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014).

11 Regardless, both factors strongly favor Plaintiffs and proposed class members. If the Court does
12
not provide immediate injunctive relief, Plaintiffs and the proposed class will continue to suffer
13
irreparable harm, including the ongoing violation of their statutory and constitutional rights,
14
separation from their families, emotional trauma, untenable financial burdens, and deprivation of
15
medical and familial care. See supra Section III.B.3. Furthermore, EO2 includes provisions that
16
are likely to extend the unlawful visa ban under certain circumstances, potentially prolonging
17
these harms indefinitely. See id.
18
What Plaintiffs and proposed class members seek—that Defendants follow the lawful
19
visa adjudication and issuance process and lawfully adjudicate applications for admission for
20

21 those who obtain validly approved immigrant visas after March 16, 2017—would cause no

22 countervailing harm whatsoever; indeed, it would be in the public interest. Defendants alleged

23 that the ban is need for national security reasons, but they already require proposed class

24 members to undergo extensive security screening before making individual visa issuance 25 decisions. See Dkt. 52 ¶¶38-43.41 While EO2 states that “the risk of erroneously permitting entry

26 of a national” of the six countries who seeks to harm the United States is “unacceptably high,”

27

28 41

See generally Brief of Amici Curiae Former Consular Officials in Support of Respondent, Kerry v. Din,

135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015).

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

23

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 25 of 27

1 Defendants still have not identified evidence to support the claims or proof that the current

2 vetting processes, administered by the U.S. government are insufficient.42 Indeed, current and

3 former employees of Defendants have stated that EO1 had no plausible basis and was likely

4 ineffective. See Section II; Dkt. 52 ¶¶99-104. The ban does not have a legitimate purpose; even
5 the evidence available prior to discovery indicates that this iteration of the ban, like EO1, is
6
motivated by discriminatory animus. See Section III.B.2.b.
7
Instead of protecting the United States, the EOs will cause Defendants to unlawfully
8
separate families and unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of religion and national origin.
9
See Section III.B.2.b. The Ninth Circuit “agree[s] . . . that it is always in the public interest to
10
prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002 (quotation
11
omitted); see also Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369, at *34 (noting public interest “in
12
avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination”); Small v. Avanti Health
13
Sys., LLC, 661 F.3d 1180, 1197 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he public interest favors applying federal
14
15 law correctly.”); Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1146 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he public
16 interest . . . benefits from a preliminary injunction that ensures that federal statutes are construed
17 and implemented in a manner that avoids serious constitutional concerns.”).

18

Thus, the balance of equities and public interest sharply favor Plaintiffs and proposed

19 class members. As such, preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.

20

III. CONCLUSION

21

Plaintiffs and proposed class members have demonstrated that they satisfy the required

criteria for a TRO and preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court should grant this motion.
22

23

Dated this 10th day of March, 2017.

24

25
42

Despite criticism from federal courts that Defendants “pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of

26 the countries named in the [EO1] has perpetrated a terrorist attack,” Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369,

*32, this iteration of the EO still fails to identify the requested evidence. EO2 references only one individual

27 originally from a targeted country, a U.S. citizen who originally entered this country as a child refugee and “was

sentenced” for “attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.” EO2 at § 1(h). But it does not indicate that an

28 allegedly temporary ban on entry from the six countries, or even new standards or document requirements for visa

adjudication, see EO2 § 2(a), (c), would have had any impact on the entry of such a child refugee.

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

24

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 26 of 27

Respectfully submitted,
1

2

s/Matt Adams

Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

3

s/Glenda Aldana

4

Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987

5

s/Maria Lucia Chavez

6

Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

7
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

8

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

9

(206) 957-8611

10

(206) 587-4025 (fax)

11

s/Trina Realmuto

Trina Realmuto, admitted pro hac vice

12

13

s/Kristin Macleod-Ball

Kristin Macleod-Ball, admitted pro hac vice

14

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT

15

OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

16

14 Beacon Street, Suite 602

Boston, MA 02108

17

(617) 227-9727

(617) 227-5495 (fax)
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

25

s/Mary Kenney Mary Kenney, admitted pro hac vice s/Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, admitted pro hac vice s/Melissa Crow Melissa Crow, admitted pro hac vice AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 507-7512 (202) 742-5619 (fax)
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53 Filed 03/10/17 Page 27 of 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2 I hereby certify that on March 10, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 3 the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys

4 of record for all Defendants. With respect to new Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection

5 and the Attorney General, current counsel for Defendants, Stacy Young, has advised that she will

6 not accept service for the agency. Therefore, along with a copy of the amended complaint and

7 second motion for class certification, I arranged for personal delivery of these documents and

8 corresponding proposed orders to:

9

United States Attorney’s Office

10

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271
11

12 as well as the mailing of these documents by U.S. certified mail to:

13

U.S. Attorney General

14

U.S. Department of Justice

15

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

16
and
17

18

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Office of the Chief Counsel

19

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20229
20

Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 10, 2017.
21

22 s/ Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
23 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
24
Seattle, WA 98104
25 (206) 957-8611 (206) 587-4025 (fax)
26

27

28

MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

26

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 4

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; 11 Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor;

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12 Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh

HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

13 Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION

14

minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

and on behalf of others similarly situated,

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

15

INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

17 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 18 of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
General of the United States; U.S. 19 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 21 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 22 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 23 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; 24 Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting
Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE 25 DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, 26 Acting Director of National Intelligence,

27

28

Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

EMERGENCY MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4

1
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
2
and Preliminary Injunction, the parties’ briefing, and oral argument, this Court finds that
3
Plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for an emergency temporary restraining order in this case.
4
See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Alliance for the
5
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
6
Accordingly, this Court hereby ORDERS a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
7
providing that Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees,
8
9 attorneys, and persons acting in concert of participation with them are immediately:

10

1. Enjoined and restrained from applying Sections 1(f), 2, and 3 of Executive Order

13780 (EO) to suspend the processing, adjudication, and/or issuance of immigrant

11

visas to Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and A.F.A., Reema Khaled Dahman and

12

G.E., Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain and Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Olad Issa Omar,

Faduma Olad Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I., and all other proposed class members;

13

2. Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Sections 1(f), 2, and 3 of the EO, in so far

as it precludes persons approved for immigrant visas on or after March 16, 2017

14

12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time from boarding flights to the United States and

15

entering the country as lawful permanent residents;

3. Enjoined and restrained from revoking immigrant visas based on Sections 1(f), 2,

16

and 3 of the EO; and

4. Ordered to advise immigrant visa petitioners, through electronic mail or

17

otherwise, of the status of immigrant visa applications submitted by beneficiaries

18

of their petitions.

19

This temporary restraining order is granted on a nationwide basis.

20

This Court has exercised its discretion to determine that no bond shall be required and

21 that this Order shall be effective immediately.

22

23

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the parties’

24 briefing, and oral argument, if any, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for

25 preliminary injunctive relief in this case. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

26 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 27 (9th Cir. 2011). The standard for issuing a preliminary injunction is the same as the standard for
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

EMERGENCY MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4

1
issuing a temporary restraining order. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. Of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,
2
434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240
3
F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).
4
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pending a trial on the merits, Defendants and
5
all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert
6
of participation with them are:
7

8

5. Enjoined and restrained from applying Sections 1(f), 2, and 3 of Executive Order

13780 (EO) to suspend the processing, adjudication, and/or issuance of immigrant

9

visas to Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and A.F.A., Reema Khaled Dahman and

G.E., Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain and Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Olad Issa Omar,

10

Faduma Olad Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I., and all other proposed class members;

11

6. Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Sections 1(f), 2, and 3 of the EO, in so far

as it precludes persons approved for immigrant visas on or after March 16, 2017

12

12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time from boarding flights to the United States and

entering the country as lawful permanent residents;

13

7. Enjoined and restrained from revoking immigrant visas based on Sections 1(f), 2,

14

and 3 of the EO; and

8. Ordered to advise immigrant visa petitioners, through electronic mail or

15

otherwise, of the status of immigrant visa applications submitted by beneficiaries

of their petitions.
16

17

This preliminary injunction is granted on a nationwide basis.

18

This Court has exercised its discretion to determine that no bond shall be required and

19 that this Order shall be effective immediately.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22

DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, 2017.

23

JAMES L. ROBART

24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

EMERGENCY MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 53-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4

1
Presented this 10th day of March, 2017, by:
2

3
s/Matt Adams 4 Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLS.’

EMERGENCY MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 27

Honorable James L. Robart
1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor;
10 Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh 11 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma
Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a 12 minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals 13 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 17 of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
General of the United States; U.S. 18 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W. 19 TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 20 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 21 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori 22 SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS;
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; 23 Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting
Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE 24 DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 25 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY,
Acting Director of National Intelligence,
26

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: April 7, 2017
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

27

Defendants.

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 27

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs and prospective class members are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents

3 (LPRs), and U.S.-based business entities who have petitioned for immigrant visas for family
4
members and employees, and nationals of six predominantly Muslim countries who are the
5
beneficiaries of those petitions. They seek to be reunited in the United States, but are indefinitely
6
7 barred from doing so by Executive Order 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017), signed by

8 Defendant Trump on March 6, 2017.
9
Before signing Executive Order 13780 (EO2), Defendant Trump issued Executive Order
10
13769 (EO1), 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017), on January 27, 2017. EO1 ordered the
11
12 immediate suspension of entry of individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and

13 Yemen into the United States. EO1 caused chaos and wreaked havoc in the lives of many

14 affected individuals, including Plaintiffs and proposed class members: Defendants stopped
15
adjudicating and issuing immigrant visas to them, refused to honor the immigrant visas already
16
issued, and, in fact, revoked all properly issued visas en masse. See Amended Complaint, Dkt. 52
17
18 ¶¶54-56; Dkt. 9 at 18-22 (discussing irreparable harm to affected individuals). It was only after

19 this Court, on February 3, 2017, issued injunctive relief in Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-

20 141-JLR (W.D. Wash.), that Defendants temporarily ceased their unlawful conduct.
21
In response to that order, and the subsequent opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of
22
Appeals affirming it, Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 (9th
23
24 Cir. 2017), Defendants announced they would rescind the original executive order and issue a

25 new one. EO2 announces that as of its effective date—March 16, 2017—it will revoke and
26
replace EO1. See EO2 §§13, 14. EO2 continues the unlawful and unconstitutional policies
27
initiated in EO1. Subject to exceptions not relevant here, Sections 1(f), 2(c), and 3 of EO2
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 27

prohibit the entry of individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen into the
1
2 United States if they are outside of the United States on March 16, 2017, did not have a valid

3 visa on the date EO1 was signed, and do not have one on March 16, 2017. Like EO1, EO2
4 provides for an initial 90-day suspension, EO2 §2(c), but also contemplates an ongoing and
5
indefinite suspension on the entry of those nationals into the United States, subject to future
6
determinations of the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretary of State
7
8 and the Attorney General, EO2 §2(e). The effect of these provisions is to reinstate the unlawful

9 nationality and religion based suspension of immigrant visa adjudications temporarily halted by
10
the TRO in Washington for an indefinite period of time. EO2, like its predecessor, violates
11
Defendants’ non-discrimination obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It
12
13 also violates Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ Fifth Amendments rights to due process

14 under the law, including its guarantee of equal protection under the law, and the First

15 Amendment prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion.
16
Plaintiffs and proposed class members have followed the rigorous immigrant visa
17
process. Many, including Plaintiffs, did so with the goal of reuniting with family members in the
18
19 United States. However, EO2 bans those who are beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions from

20 entering the country and precludes the Department of State from issuing visas, effectively

21 suspending the adjudication of immigrant visa applications for all nationals of any of the six
22
designated countries. It thereby blocks Plaintiffs and proposed class members from making
23
otherwise lawful entries into the United States and deprives those who lawfully filed family-
24
25 based petitions and immigrant visa applications of the right to live together as families. They

26 suffer ongoing daily harm as they are further separated from families or employment, and are
27
unaware when, if ever, they will be permitted to be reunited.
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 27

Despite having a clear duty not to discriminate based on “nationality, place of birth, or
1
2 place of residence” in issuing immigrant visas, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), Defendants have in

3 fact created nationality-based guidance that targets nationals of these six predominantly Muslim

4 countries. To prevent ongoing and future harm, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief
5
from such unlawful executive action.
6
The questions presented in this case—whether Defendants have violated their statutory
7
8 and constitutional duty not to discriminate in adjudicating, issuing, and honoring immigrant

9 visas—can and should be resolved on a class-wide basis. The proposed class, moreover, satisfies
10
the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
11
Procedure. Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the following class, with all named Plaintiffs
12
13 as class representatives:

14

All nationals of countries designated by Section 2 of Executive Order 13780

(currently Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), who have applied for

15

or will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those nationals;

16

whose visa application adjudication has been or will be suspended or denied, or

who have been or will be denied the ability to seek entry into and/or enter the

17

United States, on the basis of Executive Order 13780.

18
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the class, requiring the Court
19
20 to declare the EOs are contrary to the INA and the Constitution, halt their application, and order

21 Defendants to resume adjudicating, issuing, and honoring Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas.

22

II. BACKGROUND

23

A. Plaintiffs’ Legal Claims

24

Although the Court need not engage in “an in-depth examination of the underlying

25
merits” at this stage, it may analyze the merits to the extent necessary to determine the propriety
26

27 of class certification. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011); see

28 also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-53 (2011). For that reason, Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 5 of 27

provide a brief summary of their merits claims here. See also Dkt. 52 ¶¶ 172-194; Dkt. 53 at
1
2 § III.B.2.

3

The named Plaintiffs are two U.S. citizens, two LPRs, and six nationals of predominantly

4 Muslim countries who seek to be reunited and live as families in the United States. Like
5
thousands before them, they have diligently pursued the lengthy and demanding immigrant visa
6
process, which entails, inter alia, filing immigrant visa petitions and immigrant visa applications,
7

8 paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in filing and related fees, undergoing security

9 screenings and medical examinations, and attending interviews before a consular officer.
10
However, the unlawful and discriminatory executive orders issued by Defendant Trump on
11
January 27 and March 6 have shattered their prospects for being reunited in the United States,
12
13 and well as the reunification prospects of the scores of similarly situated families and individuals

14 they seek to represent through this action.

15

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 enshrined the principle of

16
nondiscrimination into the immigration laws, providing that “no person shall receive any
17
preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of
18

19 the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C.

20 § 1152(a)(1)(A). This bedrock of nondiscrimination was enacted to root out the discriminatory

21 national origin quota system—in place between 1924 and 1965—that restricted immigration on
22
the basis of national origin. See Li v. Renaud, 654 F.3d 376, 377 (2d Cir. 2011) (summarizing the
23
history of the national origin quota system). Under that system, immigration from countries
24
25 outside Northern and Western Europe was highly restricted, and immigration from Asia and

26 Africa was essentially barred.
27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 6 of 27

By the civil rights era, this system was openly under attack by members of Congress as
1
2 deeply flawed and racist. See, e.g., Immigration and Nationality Act: Hearing on H.R. 7919

3 before Subcomm. No. 1 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong. 208 (1964) (testimony of
4 Rep. Harold Ryan) (“It is unfair—it is unjust—it is pure discrimination for us to stamp a ‘second
5
best’ rating on any individual because of his birthplace.”); id. (testimony of Rep. William
6
Barrett) (“It is perhaps unnecessary for me to reiterate the well-known fact that the national
7
8 origins quota system . . . is based upon an infamous lie.”). Thus, “[i]n 1965, concerned about

9 discrimination on the basis of ‘race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,’
10
Congress repealed the national origins quota system.” Li, 654 F.3d at 377; see also S. REP. 89-
11
748, 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3328, 3329 (1965) (noting that the “primary objective” of the 1965 Act
12
13 was “the abolishment of the national origins quota system”).

14

EO2, like EO1, directly violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) by requiring discrimination in

15 the adjudication and issuance of immigrant visas “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality,
16
place of birth, or place of residence.” The only circuit court to have analyzed § 1152(a)(1)(A)
17
found that the statute was unambiguous and that national origin discrimination is impermissible.
18
19 Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,

20 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Legal Assistance for Vietnamese

21 Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 104 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
22
See also Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. 442, 453 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (“8 U.S.C.
23
§ 1152(a)(1)(A) manifested Congressional recognition that the maturing attitudes of our nation
24
25 made discrimination on [the listed] bases improper. In the face of such a decision by Congress,

26 [the former Immigration and Naturalization Service] has no authority to discriminate on the basis
27
of national origin or race . . . .”). Therefore, the EOs are unlawful on their face, as Congress
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

5 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 7 of 27

barred national-origin discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. See 8 U.S.C. §
1
2 1152(a)(1)(A).

3

Defendants’ discriminatory actions also violate Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under

4 the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment on the basis of nationality and religion. The
5
Ninth Circuit has affirmed that noncitizens, including those not admitted to the United States,
6
“com[e] within the ambit of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.” Kwai
7

8 Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 974 (9th Cir. 2004).

9

Nationality and religion are both “suspect classifications,” and so claims of

10
discrimination on these bases are subject to strict scrutiny, requiring such classifications to be
11
narrowly tailored and justified by a compelling government interest. See, e.g., Graham v.
12
13 Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371 (1971); Ball v. Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 2001);

14 Christian Sci. Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. City of San Francisco, 784 F.2d 1010, 1012

15 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs need not show that animus against a protected class “was the sole
16
purpose of the challenged action, but only that it was a ‘motivating factor.’” Arce v. Douglas,
17
793 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.,
18
19 429 U.S. 252, 265–66 (1977)).

20

Although EO2 does not explicitly call for a suspension on the entry of Muslims into the

21 country, President Trump’s animus towards Muslims is demonstrated by his own statements
22
made throughout the presidential campaign, which later materialized in EO1. See Dkt. 52 ¶¶87-
23
90 (noting Defendant Trump’s prior calls for a Muslim ban and for a registry of Muslims in the
24
25 United States). Defendant Trump expressly linked EO1 to Islam, and his advisors have

26 confirmed that EO1 was intended as a ban on Muslims. See id. ¶¶92-95 (noting comments by
27
Defendant Trump linking the EOs to “radical Islamic” terrorism and Rudolph Giuliani that
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

6 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 8 of 27

Defendant Trump asked him to write a “legal” ban on Muslims); cf. id. ¶96 (describing EO1’s
1
2 prioritization of refugee claims by religious minorities).

3

EO2 is the continuation of EO1. The changes included in it—such as exceptions for

4 lawful permanent residents, individuals already admitted or paroled into the country, and dual
5
nationals of a designated country traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country—
6
were included specifically for the purpose of avoiding legal challenges and not to remedy the
7

8 underlying intent of the EOs. See, e.g., EO2 §1(c); §1(f) (stating that it “clarifies or refines the

9 approach” to certain issues in EO1, as well as excluding certain categories of noncitizens that
10
“prompted judicial concerns”); Dkt. 52 ¶86 (noting Senior White House Policy Adviser Miller
11
remarked that the new executive order was “intended to address only ‘very technical issues’ and
12
13 achieve ‘the same basic policy outcome’” as EO1”). Moreover, with regard to the issues in this

14 case, EO2 does not meaningfully differ in substance from EO1. It continues to target six of the

15 seven countries originally included in EO1 and, beginning March 16, 2017, re-institutes the ban
16
on immigrant visa adjudication and issuance found in EO1. In short, EO2 continues the
17
discriminatory treatment of nationals of the six targeted countries found in EO1. No compelling
18
19 government interest is served by such discriminatory motives.

20

Even if this Court finds that strict scrutiny does not apply, it must review the decision

21 under rational basis review. See, e.g. Ram v. I.N.S., 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001) (evaluating
22
whether “‘[l]ine-drawing’ decisions made by . . . the President in the context of immigration and
23
naturalization . . . are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose”). “[S]uch review is
24
25 more searching when a classification adversely affects unpopular groups,” such as, in this case,

26 Muslims and individuals from the six affected countries. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008,
27
1012 (9th Cir. 2011). EO2, like EO1, is not rationally related to a legitimate purpose. To the
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

7 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 9 of 27

extent it purports to relate to national security concerns, it is fatally over inclusive. See, e.g., Dkt.
1
2 52 ¶103 (noting that there were no terrorism-related deaths in the United States between 1975

3 and 2015 caused by individuals from the six affected countries).

4

In addition, Defendants’ unlawful actions violate the constitutionally protected liberty

5
interest in marriage, family life, and child-rearing for those U.S. citizen and LPR Plaintiffs who
6

filed immigrant visa petitions on behalf of their close family members. See, e.g., Loving v.
7

8 Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40

9 (1974); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality op.); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531
10
F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a U.S. citizen or LPR
11
spouse has the right to bring a due process challenge to the denial of a family member’s visa.
12
13 See, e.g., Bustamante, 531 F.3d at 1062 (“Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and

14 family life is, of course, one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause”); see also

15 Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *24 (“The procedural protections provided by the
16
Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens.”). Here, Plaintiffs have
17
endured a rigorous immigrant visa application process, including extensive security screening,
18
19 which has already separated Plaintiff family members for significant periods. EO2, which retains

20 EO1’s provisions unlawfully suspending visa adjudications and issuances, will prolong the

21 separation of these families, perhaps indefinitely. See EO2 § 2(e) (permitting indefinite extension
22
if the DHS Secretary determines that an affected country does not share sufficient data with the
23
United States). Due process requires a different result.
24

25

Lastly, EO2 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Where the

26 government acts to disfavor one religion by, inter alia, placing “burdens . . . on particular
27
denominations,” its actions are subject to strict scrutiny. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 254
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 10 of 27

(1982). EO2 uniquely disfavors Muslims and burdens Plaintiffs and proposed class members
1
2 with discriminatory treatment, inability to enter the United States, and stigma, see, e.g., Dkt. 52

3 ¶¶62-73, 188-189; Dkt. 55 ¶18—based on religious bias—and so Defendants cannot show that it

4 is closely fitted to a compelling government interest.
5
Even if the Court finds that EO2 does not “grant[] a denominational preference,” Larson,
6
456 U.S. at 246, Defendants nonetheless violate the First Amendment, because EO2 cannot
7
8 survive the three-part test for evaluating compliance with the Establishment Clause set out in

9 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). A government action must “have a secular . . .
10
purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits
11
religion; finally, the [action] must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with
12
13 religion.’” 403 U.S. at 612-13 (citations omitted). But EO2 does not have a secular purpose and

14 its primary effect inhibits religion. EO2 was intended to mark Muslims for disfavored treatment.

15 No country with a different religious majority, regardless of political instability or lack of
16
cooperation with the U.S. government, is similarly targeted. And, by singling out and barring
17
visa issuance for applicants from six predominantly Muslim nations, EO2’s operation will have
18
19 the intended effect of limiting the ability of Muslims to immigrate to the United States and

20 further stigmatizing Islam as disfavored by the U.S. government.

21

B. Named Plaintiffs’ Factual Backgrounds

22
Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and her son A.F.A.
23
Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali is a 23-year-old U.S. citizen who resides in Washington
24

25 State. Ms. Ali was born in Somalia and came to the United States as a child. She derived U.S.

26 citizenship on August 31, 2010. On August 12, 2016, Ms. Ali filed a family-based immigrant

27 visa petition (Form I-130) for her son, Plaintiff A.F.A., with USCIS, along with the requisite fee.

28

A.F.A. is a 7-year-old citizen and resident of Somalia, where he lives with his grandmother. On

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 11 of 27

December 21, 2016, USCIS approved the immigrant visa petition Ms. Ali filed on behalf of
1
2 A.F.A., and his case was subsequently transferred to the National Visa Center (“NVC”) for the

3 processing of an IR-2 immigrant visa for an unmarried, minor child of a U.S. citizen. On January
4 17, 2017, the NVC processed Ms. Ali’s payment of the requisite filing fees for the immigrant
5
visa application and the affidavit of support. On January 20, 2017, Ms. Ali electronically
6
submitted A.F.A.’s immigrant visa application (Form DS-260) and mailed all supporting
7
8 documents. When EO1 was issued, Ms. Ali and A.F.A. were waiting for the U.S. embassy to

9 schedule an immigrant visa interview. EO1 caused A.F.A.’s immigrant visa application
10
adjudication to be suspended. Although it should have been resumed after this Court enjoined
11
EO1, now, pursuant to Section 2(c) of EO2, Defendants will, again, suspend the adjudication of
12
13 A.F.A.’s immigrant visa application for at least 90 days from the effective date of the order—i.e.,

14 until June 14, 2017. Pursuant to Section 2(e) of the EO, there is a significant risk that the process

15 will remain indefinitely suspended, preventing him from entering the United States to join his

16
mother, Ms. Ali.
17
18

Plaintiffs Reema Khaled Dahman and her son G.E.

19

Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman is a 40-year-old LPR who resides in Washington State.

20 She is a Syrian citizen who became an LPR on September 18, 2012. On October 19, 2015, Ms.

21 Dahman filed a family-based immigrant visa petition on behalf of her son, Plaintiff G.E., with
22
USCIS, along with the requisite filing fee. G.E. is a 16-year-old citizen and resident of Syria,
23
where he lives with his elderly grandmother. Plaintiff G.E. and his mother have not seen each
24
25 other since 2012. On June 1, 2016, USCIS approved the I-130 petition Ms. Dahman filed on

26 behalf of G.E. USCIS subsequently transferred his case to the NVC for the processing of an F2
27
immigrant visa, for a minor child of an LPR. On September 22, 2016, the NVC processed Ms.
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 12 of 27

Dahaman’s payment of the requisite filing fees for the immigrant visa application and affidavit
1
2 of support. On December 2, 2016, Ms. Dahman electronically submitted G.E.’s immigrant visa

3 application and e-mailed the NVC all civil documents and her Affidavit of Support (Form I-864).

4 Ms. Dahman and G.E. are currently waiting for the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan to schedule
5
an immigrant visa interview. EO1 caused G.E.’s immigrant visa application adjudication to be
6
suspended. Although it should have been resumed after this Court enjoined EO1, now, pursuant
7
8 to sections 2(c) of EO2, Defendants will again suspend the adjudication of G.E.’s immigrant visa

9 application until June 14, 2017 at the earliest. Indeed, pursuant to Section 2(e), there is a
10
significant risk that the process will remain indefinitely suspended, preventing him from entering
11
the United States and further prolonging his separation from his mother.
12

13

Plaintiffs Olad I. Omar, his daughters Faduma O. Issa and F.O.I., and his son S.O.I.

14
Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar is a 46-year-old U.S. citizen who resides in Washington State.
15
Mr. Omar was born in Somalia. He entered the U.S. as a refugee. He became a naturalized U.S.
16

17 citizen on April 5, 2005. On May 23, 2014, Mr. Omar filed a family-based immigrant visa

18 petition (Form I-130) for each of his three children, Plaintiff Faduma Olad Issa, Plaintiff F.O.I,

19 and Plaintiff S.O.I., with USCIS, along with the requisite fee. Plaintiff Issa is a 19-year-old
20
citizen of Somalia and resident of Kenya. Plaintiff F.O.I. is a 17-year-old citizen of Somalia
21
and resident of Kenya. Plaintiff S.O.I. is a 12-year-old citizen of Somalia and resident of
22
23 Kenya. Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I. were born in a refugee camp in Kenya, but are citizens of

24 Somalia. Issa, as the oldest of the three, is in charge of the care of F.O.I and S.O.I. On July 27,

25 2014, USCIS approved the immigrant visa petitions Mr. Omar filed on behalf of each of his
26
three children, and each case was transferred to the NVC for the adjudication of an IR-2
27
immigrant visa for an unmarried, minor child of a U.S. citizen. On October 24, 2016, Issa,
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

11 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 13 of 27

F.O.I, and S.O.I. completed their medical examination, and all three were scheduled to attend
1
2 an immigrant visa interview at the U.S. consulate in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2016. Their

3 interview was cancelled, but Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I. were then scheduled to return for an
4 immigrant visa interview on March 20, 2017. On January 28, 2017, a day after EO1 was issued,
5
Plaintiff Omar received an email cancelling those interviews. After this Court enjoined EO1,
6
Mr. Omar was able to schedule, for the third time, an immigrant visa interview for his children.
7
8 Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I are now scheduled and plan to attend an immigrant visa

9 interview on March 13, 2017. Pursuant to section 2(c) of EO2, Defendants will again suspend
10
the adjudication of Issa, F.O.I, and S.O.I.’s immigrant visa applications until June 14, 2017 at
11
the earliest. Pursuant to Section 2(e), there is a significant risk that the adjudication will remain
12
13 indefinitely suspended, preventing them from entering the United States and further prolonging

14 their separation from their father.

15

Plaintiffs Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain and his wife Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani

16
Plaintiff Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain is a 36-year-old lawful permanent resident of the United
17
States who resides in New Jersey. He is a software developer. Mr. Hussain was born in
18

19 Pakistan, and came to the United States in 1999 as an F-1 student. He received a Bachelor of

20 Science in Electrical Engineering and a master’s degree. He was granted a change of status to

21 H-1B on October 1, 2008. He became a permanent resident of the United States on October 2,
22
2013. On April 14, 2015, Mr. Hussain filed a family-based immigrant visa petition on behalf of
23
his wife, Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, with USCIS, along with the requisite filing fee. Plaintiff
24
25 Hamedani is a 31-year-old citizen and resident of Iran, where she lives with the couple’s eight-

26 month old son, E.S. On October 13, 2015, USCIS approved the I-130 petition Mr. Hussain filed
27
on behalf of his wife, Plaintiff Hamedi, and the petition was subsequently transferred to the
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 14 of 27

NVC for the adjudication of an immigrant visa as the spouse of a permanent resident (F2A).
1
2 E.S. was born in Iran, after the approval of the I-130 petition. On January 20, 2016, the NVC

3 processed Mr. Hussain's payment for the requisite fee for Plaintiff Hamedi’s immigrant visa
4 application and affidavit of support. On October 28, 2016, Mr. Hussain informed the NVC that
5
his son, E.S., had been born and the NVC processed and additional requisite fee, on November
6
17, 2016, for the immigrant visa application for the baby as derivative of Plaintiff Hamedi.
7
8 Under Iranian and Pakistani law, E.S. is a citizen of Pakistan because his father, Mr. Hussain, is

9 a citizen of Pakistan. Plaintiff Hamedi electronically submitted her immigrant visa application
10
on November 27, 2016. On December 16, 2016, Plaintiff Hussain electronically submitted
11
E.S.’s immigrant visa application. Mr. Hussain, Ms. Hamedi, and their minor son are currently
12
13 waiting for the U.S. embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates to schedule an immigrant

14 visa interview. EO1 caused the adjudication of the immigrant visa applications of Ms. Hamedi

15 and, by extension, E.S., to be suspended. Although it should have been resumed after this Court
16
enjoined EO1, now, pursuant to section 2(c) of EO2, Defendants will again suspend the
17
adjudication of their immigrant visa applications until June 14, 2017 at the earliest. Pursuant to
18
19 Section 2(e), there is significant risk that the process will remain indefinitely suspended,

20 preventing Plaintiff Hamedi and E.S. from entering the United States and further prolonging

21 their separation from Mr. Hussain.
22
III. THE COURT SHOULD CERTIFY THE CLASS.
23
The statutory and constitutional violations Plaintiffs assert have tremendous adverse
24
25 consequences. Defendants’ unilateral and discriminatory halt to immigrant visa adjudications

26 and issuance for nationals of certain countries prevents Plaintiffs from reuniting with their family
27
members, perhaps indefinitely. It prevents them from accessing important professional
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 15 of 27

opportunities and engaging in lucrative business ventures. Plaintiffs seek certification of the
1
2 aforementioned class under Rule 23(b)(2), to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices.

3

Courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely certify classes challenging the adequacy of policies

4 and procedures under the immigration laws. See, e.g., Costelo v. Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600 (C.D.
5
Cal. 2009) (certifying class of “[p]arents who have filed an immigrant visa petition who face
6
separation from their children as a result of the Defendants [sic] failure to act”), aff’d Cuellar de
7

8 Osorio v. Mayorkas, 656 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2011), rev’d on other grounds, Scialabba v. Cuellar

9 de Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191 (2014); Hootkins v. Chertoff, No. CV 07-5696, 2009 WL 57031
10
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2009) (certifying circuit-wide class of “[a]ll beneficiaries of immediate relative
11
petitions whose petitioning relatives died prior to beneficiaries’ adjudication and approval of
12
13 lawful permanent resident status”); Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, No. 2:16-cv-1024-RSM, ECF No.

14 37 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017) (certifying two nationwide classes of asylum seekers challenging

15 defective asylum application procedures); A.B.T. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
16
No. C11-2108 RAJ, 2013 WL 5913323 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2013) (certifying nationwide class
17
and approving settlement amending practices by the Executive Office for Immigration Review
18
19 and USCIS that precluded asylum applicants from receiving employment authorization);

20 Roshandel v. Chertoff, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (certifying district-wide class

21 of delayed naturalization cases); Gonzales v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 239 F.R.D. 620
22
(W.D. Wash. 2006) (certifying circuit-wide class challenging USCIS policy contradicting
23
binding precedent), preliminary injunction vacated, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) (establishing
24
25 new rule but not addressing class certification); Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. C 04–2686, 2004 WL

26 2297990 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (certifying nationwide class of lawful permanent residents
27
challenging delays in receiving documentation of their status); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 236
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

14 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 16 of 27

F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) (addressing jurisdiction in certified circuit-wide class action
1
2 challenging unlawful immigration directives issued by EOIR); Gorbach v. Reno, 181 F.R.D. 642

3 (W.D. Wash. 1998), aff’d on other grounds, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (certifying
4 nationwide class of persons challenging validity of administrative denaturalization proceedings);
5
Gete v. INS, 121 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1997) (vacating district court’s denial of class certification
6
in case challenging inadequate notice and standards in INS vehicle forfeiture procedure); Walters
7
8 v. Reno, No. C94–1204C, 1996 WL 897662 (W.D. Wash. 1996), aff’d, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.

9 1998), cert. denied, Reno v. Walters, 526 U.S. 1003 (1999) (certifying nationwide class of
10
individuals challenging adequacy of notice in document fraud immigration cases).
11
Certification of such classes is consistent with Rule 23(b)(2). The rule was intended to
12
13 “facilitate the bringing of class actions in the civil-rights area,” 7AA WRIGHT & MILLER,

14 FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1775, at 71 (3d ed. 2005), especially those—like the present

15 case—seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. This rationale applies with particular force to civil
16
rights suits like this one, where, absent class certification, there likely will be no opportunity for
17
the vast majority of proposed class members to seek redress for the legal claims at issue.
18
19 Moreover, the core issues here, like the class actions cited above, involve questions of law, rather

20 than questions of fact, and are thereby well suited for resolution on a class-wide basis. See, e.g.,

21 Unthaksinkun v. Porter, No. C11-0588JLR, 2011 WL 4502050, at *15 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 28,
22
2011) (concluding that since all class members were subject to the same notice process, its ruling
23
as to the legal sufficiency of the process “would apply equally to all class members”).
24

25

In reviewing whether to certify a nationwide class, courts consider whether (1) there are

26 similar cases currently pending in other jurisdictions, and (2) the plaintiffs are challenging a
27
nationwide policy or practice. See, e.g., Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 290
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

15 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 17 of 27

F.R.D. 579, 589 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Clark v. Astrue, 274 F.R.D. 462, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Many
1
2 lawsuits emerged challenging different elements of EO1, including the lawsuit filed on behalf of

3 the state of Washington. The instant case, however, focuses exclusively on those who are in the

4 process of applying immigrant visas abroad (as opposed to those dealing with nonimmigrant visa
5
applicants or refugees). Nor does it include habeas claims. There are no other classes certified
6
that have addressed the issues presented here. Nationwide certification, moreover, is especially
7
8 appropriate in cases challenging immigration policies and practices, given that immigration

9 policy is based on uniform, federal law. Further, nationwide certification is required in this case

10
in order to effectuate Congress’s intent to eliminate national origin discrimination in the issuance

11
of immigrant visas by the federal government.
12

13

Additionally, it would be unworkable to limit the scope of certification to anything but a

14 nationwide class. The proposed class consists of individuals residing throughout the United

15 States and in countries around the world. Thus, any challenge to Defendants’ discriminatory and
16
unlawful suspension of immigrant visa adjudication and issuance must apply to the entire nation.
17
Certification that is more limited in scope would result in Defendants treating affected
18
19 individuals differently by virtue of their location—an arbitrary and unjust result. See Gorbach,

20 181 F.R.D. at 644 (finding certification of a nationwide class particularly fitting because

21 “anything less that [sic] a nationwide class would result in an anomalous situation allowing the
22
INS to pursue denaturalization proceedings against some citizens, but not others, depending on
23
which district they reside in”).
24

25

A. This Action Satisfies the Class Certification Requirements of Rule 23(a).

26

1. The Proposed Class Members Are so Numerous That Joinder Is

Impracticable.

27

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

28
impracticable.” “‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

16 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 18 of 27

inconvenience of joining all members of the class.” Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Est., Inc., 329
1
2 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964) (citation omitted). No fixed number of class members is

3 required. Perez-Funez v. District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, 611 F. Supp.
4 990, 995 (C.D. Cal. 1984). Courts generally find this requirement is satisfied even when
5
relatively few class members are involved. See, e.g., Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d
6
1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982) (class of 39 sufficient), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810
7
8 (1982); Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Board Of Educ. Of Portland, Ark. School Dist., 446 F.2d 763, 765-66

9 (8th Cir. 1971) (class of 17 sufficient); McCluskey v. Trs. Of Red Dot Corp. Employee Stock
10
Ownership Plan & Trust, 268 F.R.D. 670, 674-76 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (class of 27 sufficient).
11
The proposed class is numerous. According to Defendant State Department’s own
12
13 statistics, 28,144 immigrant visas were issued to immigrants from the six countries included in

14 EO2 in FY 2016 (7,727 from Iran, 383 from Libya, 1,797 from Somalia, 2,606 from Sudan,

15 2,633 from Syria, and 12,998 from Yemen).1 The majority of these visas were the result of
16
family-based immigrant petitions, demonstrating that there are thousands of U.S. citizens and
17
LPR visa petitioners affected by the EOs.2 Indeed, over the last decade, more than 500,000
18
19 nationals of the affected countries have been granted LPR status.3 Moreover, five days after EO1

20 was issued, Defendant CBP reported having prevented 940 individuals, many of whom are

21

22

23

24

25 1

U.S. STATE DEP’T, Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State of Chargeability or Place of Birth):

Fiscal Year 2016 (2016), available at

26 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2016AnnualReport/FY16AnnualReportTableIII.pdf (last visited Feb. 1, 2017).

27 2

Id.

3

Marcelo Rochabrun, Trump Order Will Block 500,000 Legal U.S. Residents From Returning to America

28 From Trips Abroad, PROPUBLIC.ORG (Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-

executive-order-could-block-legal-residents-from-returning-to-america (last visited Feb. 1, 2017).

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

17 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 19 of 27

immigrant visa holders, from boarding flights to the United States.4 Therefore, at the very least,
1
2 the proposed class encompasses thousands of U.S. citizens, LPRs, and their family members, as

3 well as employers and their employee beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions. Cf. Ali, 213

4 F.R.D. at 408 (noting that “the Court does not need to know the exact size of the putative class,
5
‘so long as general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large’” (quoting Perez-
6
Funez, 611 F. Supp. at 995)); Newberg on Class Actions § 3:13 (noting that “it is well settled
7
8 that a plaintiff need not allege the exact number or specific identity of proposed class members”).

9

Numerosity is not a close question here, but even were it so, the Court should certify the

10
class. See Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., 183 F.R.D. 189, 194 (E.D. Pa. 1998)
11
(“[W]here the numerosity question is a close one, the trial court should find that numerosity
12
13 exists, since the court has the option to decertify the class later pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1).”).

14 Defendants, not Plaintiffs, are in possession of the precise number of proposed class members,

15 but Plaintiffs nonetheless have demonstrated that the number of current and future class
16
members would make their joinder impracticable, making class certification appropriate.
17
2. The Class Presents Common Questions of Law and Fact.
18
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact that are common to the class.
19
“‘[A]ll questions of fact and law need not be common’” to satisfy the commonality requirement,
20
21 however. Ellis, 657 F.3d at 981 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th

22 Cir. 1998)). One shared legal issue can suffice. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105,
23
1122 (2009) (“[T]he commonality requirements asks [sic] us to look only for some shared legal
24
issue or a common core of facts.”).
25

26

27

4

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

28 States, available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

(last visited Feb. 1, 2017).

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

18 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 20 of 27

“Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered
1
2 the same injury.’” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349-50 (citation omitted). To establish the existence of

3 a common question of law, the putative class members’ claims “must depend upon a common
4 contention” that is “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that
5
determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one
6
of the claims in one stroke.” Id. Thus, “[w]hat matters to class certification . . . is not the raising
7
8 of common ‘questions’ . . . but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate

9 common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
10
omitted).
11
The commonality standard is more liberal in civil rights suits “challeng[ing] a system-
12
13 wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275

14 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. California, 543 U.S.

15 499, 504-05 (2005). “[C]lass suits for injunctive or declaratory relief,” like this case, “by their

16
very nature often present common questions satisfying Rule 23(a)(2).” 7A WRIGHT, MILLER &
17
KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1763 at 226.
18

19

In the instant case, the proposed class members allege common harms: the unlawful and

20 discriminatory suspension of immigrant visa adjudication and refusal to honor facially valid

21 visas when the visa holders attempt to enter the United States. For many class members, these
22
harms are compounded by an interference with their right to live as families in the United States.
23
For others, they are also accompanied by an interference with their employment prospects, future
24
25 livelihood, and business ventures.

26

These harms, moreover, are rooted in a common core of facts: the EOs and their

27
application to immigrant visa petitions and applications. All class members are or will be
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

19 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 21 of 27

petitioners for or beneficiaries of an immigrant visa petition filed for an individual from one of
1
2 the six currently affected countries. Further, all of the putative class members make the same

3 legal claims—that the EOs violate the INA, which prevents nationality-based discrimination in

4 the issuance of immigrant visas, as well as their constitutionally protected rights to due process,
5
equal protection, and freedom from government establishment of religion. See Dkt. 52 ¶¶ 166,
6
172-194.
7

8

Factual variations as to, for example, the manner in which the EOs affect specific named

9 Plaintiffs are insufficient to defeat commonality. This case turns on the existence of a uniform
10
policy, first articulated in Section 3 of EO1 and reiterated in Section 2 of EO2, which applies
11
equally to all class members regardless of any factual differences. Courts have affirmed that such
12
13 factual questions are well-suited to resolution on a class-wide basis. See, e.g., Stockwell v. City &

14 County of San Francisco, 749 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing denial of class

15 certification motion because movants had “identified a single, well-enunciated, uniform policy”
16
that was allegedly responsible for the harms suffered by the class).
17
Defendants may argue that the existence of a case-by-case waiver, EO2 §3(c), makes the
18
19 individual factual circumstances of named Plaintiffs and proposed class members relevant to the

20 questions at issue here, undermining commonality. However, the fact that some class members

21 may benefit from a waiver that will allegedly be granted on a case-by-case, discretionary basis
22
does not undermine the fact that the unlawful suspension of immigration visa application
23
adjudication will be applied to all named Plaintiffs and proposed class members. That a remedy
24
25 for being subjected to that unlawful suspension might subsequently be afforded to some

26 members of the class cannot defeat commonality. Cf. Walters, 145 F.3d at 1045-46 (“[I]t would
27
be ‘a twisted result’ to permit an administrative agency to avoid nationwide litigation that
28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

20 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 22 of 27

challenges the constitutionality of its general practices simply by pointing to minor variations in
1
2 procedure …, particularly because the variations were designed to avoid the precise

3 constitutional inadequacies identified by the plaintiffs in this action.”)

4

In sum, the questions of law presented here are particularly well-suited to resolution on a

5
class-wide basis, as “the court must decide only once whether the application” of Defendants’
6

policies and practices “does or does not violate” the law. Troy v. Kehe Food Distribs., Inc., 276
7

8 F.R.D. 642, 654 (W.D. Wash. 2011); see also LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1332 (9th Cir.

9 1985) (holding that the constitutionality of an INS procedure “plainly” created common
10 questions of law and fact).5 Because all proposed class members raise the same set of common
11
questions, all of which can be remedied in a single stroke by addressing the legal claims
12
13 presented, this Court should find the commonality requirement satisfied here.

14

3. The Claims of the Named Plaintiffs Are Typical of the Claims of the

15

Members of the Proposed Class.

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the class representatives be “typical of the claims
16

17 . . . of the class.” To establish typicality, “a class representative must be part of the class and

18 ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the

19 Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982) (citation omitted). Factual differences among
20
class members do not defeat typicality in a case dealing with a uniform policy or practice,
21
provided that “the unnamed class members have injuries similar to those of the named plaintiffs
22
23 and that the injuries result from the same, injurious course of conduct.” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at

24 869; see also Unthaksinkun, 2011 WL 4502050 at *13 (same); La Duke, 762 F.2d at 1332 (“The
25
minor differences in the manner in which the representative’s Fourth Amendment rights were
26

27

28 5

As such, resolution on a class-wide basis also serves a purpose behind the commonality doctrine:

practical and efficient case management. Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1122.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

21 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 23 of 27

violated does not render their claims atypical of those of the class.”); Smith v. Univ. of Wash.
1
2 Law Sch., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1342 (W.D. Wash. 1998) (“When it is alleged that the same

3 unlawful conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff and the class sought to be
4 represented, the typicality requirement is usually satisfied, irrespective of varying fact patterns
5
which underlie individual claims.”) (citation omitted).
6
Here, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class
7
8 members. Like the named Plaintiffs, each proposed class member has diligently pursued the

9 immigrant visa process but been prevented from completing it due to the EOs. Class
10
representatives include individuals affected by EO2 at various stages of the immigrant process
11
before entering the United States, all of whom challenge the legality of EOs under the INA, the
12
13 Due Process Clause, and the Establishment Clause. Because the named Plaintiffs and proposed

14 class members raise common legal claims and are united in their interest and injury, the element

15 of typicality is met.

16

4. The Named Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests of the

17

Proposed Class Members, and Counsel Are Qualified to Litigate this

18

Action.

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
19

20 the interests of the class.” “Whether the class representatives satisfy the adequacy requirement

21 depends on ‘the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a

22 sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood that the suit is
23
collusive.’” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (citations omitted).
24
a. Named Plaintiffs
25
The named Plaintiffs each seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and have no
26
27 interest antagonistic to those of other class members; they will thus fairly and adequately protect

28 the interests of the class members they seek to represent. Their mutual goal is to declare

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

22 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 24 of 27

Defendants’ challenged EOs unlawful and to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief that would
1
2 not only cure this illegality but remedy the ongoing harm to all class members. They thus seek a

3 remedy for the same injuries, which could be addressed by halting the application, enforcement,

4 and consequences of EO2. Thus, the interests of the representatives and of the class members are
5
aligned.
6
b. Counsel
7

8

Plaintiffs’ counsel are adequate. Counsel are considered qualified when they can establish

9 their experience in previous class actions and cases involving the same field of law. See Lynch v.

10 Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30, 37 (N.D. Cal. 1984); Marcus v. Heckler, 620 F. Supp. 1218, 1223-24
11
(N.D. Ill. 1985); Adams v. Califano, 474 F. Supp. 974, 979 (D. Md. 1979). Plaintiffs are
12
represented by attorneys from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the National Immigration
13
14 Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Immigration Council. Counsel have a

15 demonstrated commitment to protecting the rights and interests of noncitizens and have
16
considerable experience in handling complex and class action litigation in the immigration field.
17
See Dkts. 4-7 (declarations of Matt Adams, Mary Kenney, Trina Realmuto, and Melissa Crow).
18
19 These attorneys have represented numerous classes of immigrants in actions that successfully

20 obtained class relief. Plaintiffs’ counsel will zealously represent both named and absent class

21 members.

22
B. This Action Also Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), under which Plaintiffs seek certification,

24
requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
25

generally to the class.” It also “requires ‘that the primary relief sought is declaratory or
26

27 injunctive.’” Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1125 (citation omitted). “The rule does not require [the

28 court] to examine the viability or bases of class members’ claims for declaratory and injunctive

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

23 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 25 of 27

relief, but only to look at whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable
1
2 to all of them.” Id. This suit satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), as Defendants have a

3 nationwide policy that is injurious to the rights and interests of the named Plaintiffs and proposed
4 class members.
5
Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory EOs are preventing the named Plaintiffs and
6
proposed class members from completing the immigrant visa process. “The only appropriate
7
8 remedy, if these allegations are established, is declaratory judgment and final injunctive relief.”

9 Walter, 1996 WL 897662 at *7. Defendants’ actions in this case violate Plaintiffs’ statutory and
10
constitutional rights. By their very language, the EOs apply across the board to all Plaintiffs—
11
Defendants have thus unquestionably acted “on grounds generally applicable to the class,
12
13 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with

14 respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); see also Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1126

15 (finding that class of noncitizens detained during immigration proceedings met Rule 23(b)(2)
16
criteria because “all class members’ [sic] seek the exact same relief as a matter of statutory or, in
17
the alternative, constitutional right”); see also Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 688 (9th Cir.
18
19 2014) (holding that Rule 23(b)(2) “requirements are unquestionably satisfied when members of a

20 putative class seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are

21 generally applicable to the class as a whole”). Hence, the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are met.

22

IV. CONCLUSION

23

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and enter the enclosed

24
proposed certification order.
25
Dated this 10th day of March, 2017.
26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

24 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 26 of 27

1

2

Respectfully submitted,

3 s/Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
4
5 s/Glenda Aldana Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No.
6 46987
7
s/Maria Lucia Chavez 8 Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

s/Mary Kenney Mary Kenney, pro hac vice
s/Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac vice
s/Melissa Crow Melissa Crow, pro hac vice

9 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

10 615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 957-8611

1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005

11 (206) 587-4025 (fax)

(202) 507-7512

(202) 742-5619 (fax)

12

13 s/Trina Realmuto Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice
14
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball 15 Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice

16
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT

17

OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 18 Boston, MA 02108

19 (617) 227-9727 (617) 227-5495 (fax)

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

25 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58 Filed 03/10/17 Page 27 of 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
I hereby certify that on March 10, 2017, I caused the electronic filing of the foregoing
2
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such
3
4 filing to the attorneys of record for all Defendants. With respect to new Defendants U.S. Customs

5 and Border Protection and the Attorney General, current counsel for Defendants, Stacey Young, has

6 advised that she will not accept service for the agency. Therefore, along with a copy of the amended
7
complaint and second motion for class certification, I arranged for personal delivery of these
8
documents and corresponding proposed orders to:
9

10

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

11

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

12
as well as the mailing of these documents by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, to:

13

U.S. Attorney General

14

U.S. Department of Justice

15

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

16

and
17

18

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Office of the Chief Counsel

19

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20229
20

21 Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 10, 2017.

22 s/ Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
23 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOT. FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Case No 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

26 of 27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone (206) 957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9
Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor;

Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor;

11 Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

12 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR

Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a

CLASS CERTIFICATION

13 minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals

and on behalf of others similarly situated,

14

15
v.

Plaintiffs,

16
Donald TRUMP, President of the United States 17 of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney

18 General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
19 TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S.

20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of
21 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

22 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS;
23 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;

24 Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
25 NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; Michael

26 DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National Intelligence,
27

28

Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 0

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 58-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2

1
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, the parties’ briefing,
2
and oral argument, if any, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for
3
class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). Specifically, Plaintiffs have
4
demonstrated that members of the proposed class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable;
5
that there are questions of law and fact common to the class; that the claims of the Plaintiffs are
6
typical of the claims of the class members; and that Plaintiffs and their counsel, as
7
representatives of the class, will fairly and adequately protect its interests. Additionally, this
8
9 Court finds that Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class in its
10 entirety, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief for all class

11 members.

12

In light of the above, this Court orders that Plaintiffs’ motion be granted and that the

13 following class be certified, with the named Plaintiffs appointed class representatives:

14

All nationals of countries designated by Section 2 of Executive Order 13780

(currently Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), who have applied for or

15

will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those nationals; whose

16

visa application adjudication has been or will be suspended or denied, or who have

been or will be denied the ability to seek entry into and/or enter the United States,

17

on the basis of Executive Order 13780.

.
18

19
DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, 2017.
20

21

JAMES L. ROBART

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
Presented this 10th day of March, 2017, by:
24

25
s/Matt Adams 26 Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 27 Counsel for Plaintiffs
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- 1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 21

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5 6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A

14 States, et al.,

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.

15

16

17

INTRODUCTION

18
The President is authorized by statute to “suspend the entry of . . . any class of aliens”

19
whenever he determines their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States[.]”
20
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Invoking that statutory authority and his constitutional authority to control
21
the entry of aliens into this country, on January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order
22
13,769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”
23

24 (“Executive Order” or “Order) (see Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), Ex. A.)

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 1

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 21

The Executive Order’s stated purpose is “to protect the American people from terrorist
1
attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States” by taking steps “to ensure that those
2
3 approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”
4 Id. The President directed, inter alia, a temporary 90-day suspension of entry for aliens from

5 seven countries previously identified by Congress or the Executive Branch as posing a

6 heightened risk of terrorism. See Exec. Order § 3(c).

7

In their putative class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction

8 prohibiting enforcement of Section 3(c) of the Executive Order. They claim that the Executive
9
Order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Administrative Procedure Act,
10
and due process rights because they have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their
11
family life, and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment because it is allegedly motivated by
12
animus toward Muslims. However, because this Court enjoined Section 3(c) of Executive Order
13
13,769 in a parallel case, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate any immediately threatened injury to
14
15 them in the absence of a second injunction being entered. Rather, the existing injunction already
16 gives Plaintiffs the benefit of whatever relief their requested preliminary injunction could

17 provide.

18

Even if Section 3(c) were not currently enjoined, Plaintiffs could not carry the heavy

19 burden that must be met to justify such an “extraordinary remedy,” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
20 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22, 25-26 (2008), particularly where, as here, no constitutional
21 violation exists because the Executive Order expressly incorporated a facially neutral statutory
22
provision identifying the countries and areas of concern whose nationals were suspended from
23
entry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). Plaintiffs’ proposed remedies suffer from numerous
24
deficiencies. First, Plaintiffs’ legal arguments contravene the general principle in immigration
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 2

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 3 of 21

law that “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no
1
constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a
2
3 sovereign prerogative,” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982), and that “it is not within
4 the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review [that] determination,”

5 United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950). Moreover, Plaintiffs

6 seek an injunction that is vastly overbroad—it is untethered to Plaintiffs’ particular claims;

7 extends to unadmitted aliens abroad, who are outside the territory of the United States; and
8 “deeply intrudes into the core concerns of the executive branch.” Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950,
9
954-55 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
10
Aside from the fact that Plaintiffs fail to meet the necessary criteria for obtaining a
11
preliminary injunction and that a second injunction from this Court enjoining Section 3(c) would
12
be duplicative, this Court need not rule on the question at this time because the President intends
13
in the near future to rescind the Executive Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised
14
15 Executive Order. Accordingly, the government respectfully submits that the most appropriate
16 course would be for the Court to hold in abeyance its consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for a
17 preliminary injunction while the current injunction remains in place or at least until the President

18 issues the new Executive Order. To facilitate that disposition, the government will notify the

19 Court of the new Order as soon as it is issued.

20

BACKGROUND

21

1. Executive Order 13,769

22

Executive Order 13,769 directs a number of actions in the interests of national security.

23
Executive Order §§ 2-11. The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to conduct an

24
immediate review to identify the “information needed from any country . . . to determine that

25

[an] individual seeking [an immigration-related] benefit is who the individual claims to be and is

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 3

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 4 of 21

not a security or public-safety threat.” Id. § 3(a). The Order also directs a process for requesting
1
necessary information from foreign governments that do not supply such information, and
2
3 consequences for countries not providing it. See id. § 3(d)-(f).

4

While that review is ongoing, the Executive Order suspends entry for 90 days of aliens

5 from seven countries previously identified as being associated with a heightened risk of terrorism

6 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12). Executive Order § 3(c). Section 1187(a)(12), enacted in

7 2015, modifies the Visa Waiver Program (“VWP”). Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242, 2990

8 (2015). The VWP allows nationals of certain countries to travel to and apply for admission to

9
the United States without a visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187. Section 1187(a)(12) restricts use of the
10
VWP for individuals from one of the 38 VWP countries who are dual nationals of, or have
11
recently travelled to, certain countries. For purposes of the dual national or travel-related
12
restriction, the statute identified Iraq and Syria, and also included countries that have been
13
designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Syria and Sudan. Id.
14

15 § 1187(a)(12)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (ii)(I)-(II).

16

In addition, the law provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security could designate

17 additional “countries or areas of concern” and shall consider “whether the presence of an alien in

18 the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national

19 security of the United States,” “whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence
20 in the country or area,” and “whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.” Id.
21 § 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). In February 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security exercised that
22
authority to restrict use of the VWP for individuals from one of the 38 VWP countries who had
23
recently travelled to Libya, Somalia, or Yemen, in an effort to ensure that the Visa Waiver
24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 4

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 5 of 21

Program’s “requirements are commensurate with the growing threat from foreign terrorist
1
fighters.”1
2

3

2. Timeline Of Significant Events And Procedural History

4

On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint—Class Action for Declaratory and

5 Injunctive Relief, (“Compl.”) on behalf of a putative class. (ECF No. 1.) Included as named

6 plaintiffs are three children, each of whom is a nonresident of the United States and an

7 unadmitted national of one of the seven identified countries. Two of the children allegedly have

8 not received immigrant visa interviews (id. at ¶¶ 60, 73), and one allegedly received an

9
immigrant visa but was unable to travel to the United States as of the date Plaintiffs filed their
10
Complaint (id. at ¶¶ 86, 89). The remaining named plaintiffs are parents, all of whom allegedly
11
filed visa petitions on behalf of their children. These plaintiffs include a U.S. citizen who is the
12
mother of one of the two named plaintiffs who has allegedly not received a visa interview (id. at
13
¶¶ 51, 54); a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) who is the mother of the other named plaintiff
14
15 who allegedly has not received a visa interview (id. at ¶¶ 63, 65); and a U.S. citizen who is the
16 father of the named plaintiff who allegedly received a visa (id. at ¶¶ 77, 79.)2

17

Plaintiffs argue that Section 3(c) of the Executive Order violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1),

18 the Administrative Procdure Act, the Mandamus Act, and equal protection and due process under

19

20

1 DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program, Feb. 18, 2016,

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver21 program. Exemptions from the Executive Order’s suspension of the entry of aliens from the

seven countries identified under § 1187(a)(12) can be made on a case-by-case basis. Executive 22 Order § 3(g).

23

2 In their preliminary injunction motion, Plaintiffs allude, for the first time, to “[p]roposed

class members that are U.S. based-employers” that “similarly have constitutionally protected

24 interests.” (ECF No. 9 at 6, 13.) However, no U.S.-based employers are mentioned in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and none are listed anywhere as named plaintiffs. Thus, under Federal Rule of Civil

25 Procedure 23(a), no such employers are parties to the lawsuit at this time.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 5

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 6 of 21

the Fifth Amendment. (Compl. at ¶¶ 3-5.) Although Defendants were not properly served with
1
the Complaint until February 9, 2017 (ECF No. 30), Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
2
3 certification on February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 3.) On February 6, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their
4 motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 9.)

5

In another case before this Court, the State of Washington—later joined by the State of

6 Minnesota—challenged the Executive Order, filing suit on January 30, 2017, and seeking a

7 temporary restraining order that same day. See Washington v. Trump, Case No. 2:17-cv-141-
8 JLR (W.D. Wash.). On February 3, 2017, the Court in that case enjoined, on a nationwide basis,
9
enforcement of Section 3(c)—at issue in this case—along with Sections 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the
10
Executive Order. Wash. v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), ECF No. 52. The Court’s injunctive order did
11
not contain an expiration date.
12
On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s emergency motion for a
13
stay of the nationwide injunction. See Wash. v. Trump, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 526497 (9th Cir.
14
15 Feb. 9, 2017) (“9th Cir. Op.”). This Court has since concluded that, based on the Ninth Circuit
16 panel’s ruling, the temporary restraining order should be construed as a preliminary injunction.
17 See Wash. v. Trump (W.D. Wash.), ECF No. 78 at 4. Based on the government’s representation

18 that President intends to rescind and replace the Executive Order in the near future, the Ninth

19 Circuit stayed en banc proceedings. Wash v. Trump (9th Cir.), ECF No. 161.

20

Despite the existing injunction of portions of Executive Order 13,769 and the

21 forthcoming rescission and replacement of that Executive Order, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not
22
agreed to stay the briefing deadlines in this case. Defendants now file this opposition to
23
Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, but maintain that the interests of judicial
24
economy weigh against the practicability of deciding the issue at this time.
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 6

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 7 of 21

3. Legal Background on Foreign Affairs Power
1
The power to control the admission of aliens is an inherent attribute of national
2
3 sovereignty. See, e.g., Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950). The Supreme Court 4 has long recognized that the political branches of the federal government have plenary authority

5 to establish and implement substantive and procedural rules governing the admission of aliens to

6 this country. Id.; see also Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 765–66 & n.6 (1972); Fiallo v.

7 Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792, 794 (1977). The political branches of the federal government therefore
8 possess concurrent authority over immigration matters. Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 964 (11th
9
Cir. 1984) (en banc) (collecting cases), aff’d on non-constitutional grounds, 472 U.S. 846
10
(1985).
11
Congress has delegated wide discretion to the President over aliens whom he believes are
12
a threat to national security, reinforcing the President’s inherent authority over foreign affairs.
13
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f); cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952)
14
15 (Jackson, J., concurring) (noting how, when “the President acts pursuant to an express or implied
16 authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in
17 his own right plus all that Congress can delegate” (emphasis added)).

18

Viewing this case in terms of Justice Jackson’s framework in Youngstown, Congress has

19 supplemented the Executive Branch’s inherent Article II authority over foreign affairs by
20 delegating broad authority on two key issues—suspension of entry of aliens and revocation of
21 visas held by aliens. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) (allowing the President to “suspend the entry of all
22
aliens or any class of aliens . . . or . . . impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem
23
to be appropriate” for as long as he considers necessary upon a finding that “the entry of any
24
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 7

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 8 of 21

United States.”), 1201(i) (granting the Secretary of State discretionary authority to revoke visas).
1
The President is also best situtated to make these complex risk assessments, given his access to
2

3 intelligence assessments and reports from advisors across the national security spectrum.

4

Here, the Executive Order stems from the President’s constitutional authority, along with

5 that delegated to him under the INA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), with respect to the

6 suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens. The purposes of the suspension are to

7 “temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period

8 described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization
9
of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate
10
standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals.” Executive
11
Order § 3(c). The Order seeks “to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to
12
harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism,” id. § 1, and “to prevent the admission
13
of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent
14
15 purposes.” Id. § 2.

16

LEGAL STANDARD

17

A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy[.]” Munaf v. Geren,

18 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008). A party seeking such relief “must establish that [it] is likely to

19 succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

20 relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public

21 interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 7, 20. Moreover, given the “remarkably broad delegations of its

22 authority” Congress has provided the Executive Branch, as well as the authority under Article II

23
for the President to conduct affairs involving matters of national sovereignty, Jean, 727 F.2d at

24
965, courts have consistently “recognized that judicial deference to the Executive Branch is

25

especially appropriate in the immigration context.” INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 8

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 9 of 21

(1999); see Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543 (“[I]t is not within the province of any court, unless
1
expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the
2
3 Government to exclude a given alien.”); see also Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529-
4 30 (1988); cf. Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2007)

5 (“[W]e acknowledge the need to defer to the Executive on matters of foreign policy and national

6 security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second guessing the Executive in this

7 arena.”). Thus, injunctive relief that would “deeply intrude[] into the core concerns of the

8 executive branch”—such as foreign affairs and national security—may be awarded only where

9
the plaintiff “make[s] an extraordinarily strong showing” as to each element. Adams, 570 F.2d
10
at 954-55 (emphasis added); see Palestine Info. Office v. Shultz, 674 F. Supp. 910, 917 (D.D.C.
11
1987) (“[B]y seeking injunctive relief against the Executive’s foreign policy action, plaintiffs ask
12
this Court to approach the outer limit of its constitutional authority.”).
13
ARGUMENT
14
1. Plaintiffs Cannot Sustain The Requirements For a Preliminary Injunction
15
A. There is no Likelihood Of Success On The Merits
16

17

Under Winter, Plaintiffs must establish that their success is likely, not just possible, in

18 order to obtain a preliminary injunction. 555 U.S. at 24. Any inquiry into the merits must first

19 consider threshold issues such as Article III standing and subject matter jurisdiction, which if not

20 satisfied by the movant, require finding in the government’s favor. If the plaintiff lacks standing

21 under Article III, then the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. 22 See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101–02 (1998). Here, Plaintiffs 23 fail to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 9

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 10 of 21

i. Due Process Claims
1
The due process claims of the nonresident, unadmitted alien plaintiffs must fail at the
2
3 threshold for the simple reason that aliens outside our borders have no constitutional right to
4 entry or to a visa. See Landon, 459 U.S. at 32 (“[A]n alien seeking initial admission to the
5 United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for
6 the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”). Even at ports of entry,
7 nonresident aliens have not entered the country and have no due process rights with respect to
8 their request for admission beyond what Congress has affirmatively provided. See id.; Mezei v.
9
Shaughnessy, 345 U.S. 206, 213; accord. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271
10
(1990) (noting how “aliens receive constitutional protections [once] they have come within the
11
territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country” (emphasis
12
added)).
13
Under the INA, Congress has given the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of
14
15 classes of aliens whom he believes would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 16 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). And under decisions such as Mezei, excludable aliens do not have a
17 constitutional right to enter or be admitted to the United States. See Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257
18 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). This is particularly true where Congress has delegated to the

19 Executive Branch authority over decisions to admit or exclude aliens. See Castro v. United

20 States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422, 439-44 (3d Cir. 2016) (collecting cases).

21

In these circumstances, “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due

22
process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” Mezei, 345 U.S at 212 (quoting Knauff,

23
338 U.S. at 544). The Ninth Circuit has adhered to Mezei and its progeny. See Barrera-
24
Echavarria v. Rison, 14 F.3d 1414, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Mezei and Knauff).
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 10

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 11 of 21

Congress has not provided for any judicial review of a visa refusal, see, e.g., 6 U.S.C. § 236(f )
1
(providing that the designation of authorities in Section 236 does not give rise to a private right
2
3 of action against a consular officer to challenge a decision to grant or deny a visa), or a visa
4 revocation, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i). The nonresident, unadmitted alien plaintiffs thus cannot
5 demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their due process claim.3

6

The U.S. citizen and LPR plaintiffs’ due process claims are also unavailing. (Compl. at ¶

7 121 (alleging that the Executive Order violates their “constitutionally protected liberty interest in
8 their family life.”).) The Ninth Circuit has allowed very limited review of a consular officer’s
9
decision to deny an unadmitted, nontresident alien’s visa application when the denial is alleged
10
to implicate the rights of a United States citizen spouse.4 See Cardenas v. United States, 826
11
F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008).5
12
None of the named plaintiffs allege that their family members’ visas were denied—two of the
13

14

3 Plaintiffs find no support in the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 15 (2004), which they cite for the proposition that nonresident, unadmitted aliens may challenge the

16

Executive Order. (ECF No. 9 at 5.) Although the Court in Rasul did find that “[t]he courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens,” 542 U.S. at 484, such

17 aliens have no rights regarding their admission to the country. See, e.g., Landon, 459 U.S. at 32; Mezei, 345 U.S. at 213.

18

4 The Ninth Circuit suggested that Mandel’s “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard

would not apply in this case because it is limited to “lawsuits challenging an executive branch

19 official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa” rather than broad “immigration polic[ies]”

like the Order. Ninth Cir. Op. at 15-16 (quotation marks and citation omitted). But the Supreme 20 Court itself, in Fiallo v. Bell, applied Mandel to reject challenges to an immigration statute,

which obviously involved questions of immigration policy rather than individualized executive 21 adjudications. 430 U.S. at 794-95 (“We can see no reason to review the broad congressional

policy choice at issue here under a more exacting standard than was applied in * * * Mandel.”).

22

5 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kerry v. Din did nothing to change the calculus.

23 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015). In that case, Justice Kennedy, in his concurring and controlling opinion, did not opine as to whether a U.S. citizen has a protected liberty interest in her marriage entitling

24 her to limited judicial review. Din, 135 S.Ct. at 2139. Instead, Justice Kennedy concluded that “even assuming” Din had such an interest, “the notice she received regarding her husband’s visa

25 denial satisfied due process.” Id.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 11

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 12 of 21

nonresident, unadmitted plaintiffs have not yet completed the visa process, and one may have
1
had her visa revoked.
2

3

Even assuming arguendo that the Order has implicated the U.S. citizen and LPR

4 plaintiffs’6 due process rights and that judicial review were available, this Court’s review of the

5 Executive Order would be strictly limited.7 When the Executive exercises its immigration

6 authority “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look

7 behind the exercise of that discretion.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770; Cardenas, 826 F.3d at 1170.

8 Here, the Executive Order states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason. By expressly relying
9
upon the President’s authority under § 1182(f), the Executive Order explains that the temporary
10
suspension is intended “to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available
11
resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are
12
established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals.” Executive Order § 3(c).
13
Accordingly, even if this Court were to undertake the type of limited review contemplated by
14
15 Mandel and Din, Plaintiffs’ challenge would lack merit.

16

ii. Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment

17

Plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the equal protection component of the

18 Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Compl. at ¶¶ 115-118). But again, the nonresident,

19 unadmitted alien plaintiffs do not have rights under the Due Process Clause with respect to their 20 request for entry into the United States, and the resident Plaintiffs are only entitled, if anything, 21 to review under the “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard. In any event, contrary to
22

23

6 To be clear, the decisions in Din, Cardenas, and Bustamante concerned the constitutional

24 interests of U.S. citizens, not LPRs. 7 The LPR plaintiffs in this case assert putative due process claims based solely on their

25 relationship to family members. Their own ability to reenter the country is not at issue. Cf. 9th

Cir. Op. 21-22.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 12

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 13 of 21

Plaintiffs’ contention that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard (ECF No. 9 at 14), where an
1
equal protection claim is made to an immigration law, only rational basis review applies. See,
2
3 e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976) (considering whether a law that made distinctions
4 based on alien status was “wholly irrational”); Jimenez–Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 603

5 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasoning that nationality-based classification of noncitizens satisfies equal

6 protection if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.).

7

Under highly deferential rational basis scrutiny, a statutory classification must be upheld

8 so long as “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis
9
for the classification.” F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993); see also See
10
Yao v. I.N.S., 2 F.3d 317, 321 (9th Cir. 1993). The Equal Protection Clause is satisfied so long as
11
there is “a plausible policy reason for the classification, the legislative facts on which the
12
classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the
13
governmental decisionmaker, and the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so
14
15 attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11
16 (1992).

17

The Executive Order easily satisfies this relevant standard. From a constitutional

18 perspective, the Executive Branch is permitted to draw distinctions based on nationality in the

19 context of immigration and entry into the United States. See, e.g., Jean, 727 F.2d at 978 n.30
20 (“[T]here is little question that the Executive has the power to draw distinctions among aliens on
21 the basis of nationality.”); Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
22
(“[C]lassifications among aliens based upon nationality are consistent with due process and equal
23
protection if supported by a rational basis.”). Here, the President’s determination that nationals
24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 13

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 14 of 21

from the seven countries identified are associated with a heightened risk of terrorism creates a
1
rational basis for the Executive Order.
2

3

Plaintiffs next allege that the Order stems from an “animus toward—and has a disparate

4 effect on—Muslims.” (Compl. at ¶ 118.) But the plain language of the Executive Order

5 includes nothing discussing Islam or any other particular religion, and Plaintiffs cannot establish

6 animus here. The Order references countries subject to an existing statutory provision that

7 restricted VWP travel for individuals traveling to one of the countries, based on terrorism-related
8 concerns.
9
Even if there is a disparate impact, that does not call the validity of the Executive Order
10
into question under the Mandel standard of review. The Executive Order “temporarily reduce[s]
11
investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a)
12
of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for
13
the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to
14
15 prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals.” Executive Order § 3(c). The courts must
16 exercise restraint when faced with facially legitimate and bona fide decisions made by the
17 Executive Branch. See Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 794.

18

iii. Claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and

Mandmus Act

19

Plaintiffs fail to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under the APA
20

and the Mandamus Act for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the APA
21

22 against the Executive Order because the President is not an “agency” for the purposes of the

23 APA. In Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992), the United States Supreme

24 Court concluded that the Presidency is not an “agency” as defined in the APA, § 701(b)(1).

25 Courts have interpreted Franklin to prohibit review under the APA of actions by the President

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 14

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 15 of 21

when he is exercising discretionary authority. See, e.g., Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Gov’t of
1
Canada, 189 F. Supp. 3d 85, 104 (D.D.C. 2016). Here, Congress has granted the President
2
3 authority to suspend entry for any class of aliens if he finds that such entry would be
4 “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Pursuant to, and without

5 exceeding, that grant of discretionary authority, the President issued the Executive Order and

6 suspended entry of aliens from the seven subject countries. The President’s action is thus

7 unreviewable under the APA. See Detroit Int’l Bridge, 189 F. Supp. 3d at 104-05.8

8

Second, Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim under the APA if the claim is precluded by

9
another statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). Here, to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to challenge

10
the State Department’s provisional revocation of any visa, such challenge is precluded by 8

11
U.S.C. § 1201(i), which states in relevant part:
12

[T]he consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion,

13

revoke such visa or other documentation . . . . There shall be no means of judicial

review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of Title 28 or any other habeas

14

corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under

15

this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

16

17

8 In addition, the APA precludes judicial review of any agency action that is “committed to

18 agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 594, 600-01 (1988) (holding that the Director of Central Intelligence had complete discretion over employee

19 discharges, and thus judicial review was precluded). By its plain terms, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) vests

discretion in the President to determine whether “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens

20 into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for the period

“as he shall deem necessary,” and to impose such conditions of entry as “he may deem 21 appropriate.” As a result, there is no discernable standard for judicial review of the President’s

determinations. See Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 789 F. Supp. 1552, 1575-76 (S.D. Fla. 22 1991). Thus, even if Plaintiffs could challenge a presidential finding under the APA, the

23 challenge would necessarily fail under these circumstances.

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 15

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 16 of 21

8 U.S.C. § 1201(i) (emphasis added). Based on the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i),
1
Plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to any
2
3 APA claim challenging the revocation of a visa.9

4

Third, to the extent Planitiffs purport to challenge a consular officer’s denial of or failure

5 to adjudicate their visa applications, as explained supra, an alien has no right of admission into

6 this country.10 Thus, Plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on the merits of a claim under the

7 APA seeking to require the government to admit them into this country. The INA confers upon

8 consular officers the exclusive authority to adjudicate visa applications. See 8 U.S.C. §§

9
1104(a), 1201(a); see also 6 U.S.C. § 236(b), (c). It is well established, however, that
10
“[o]btaining a visa from an American consul has never guaranteed an alien’s entry into the
11
United States. A visa merely gives the alien permission to arrive at a port of entry and have an
12
immigration officer independently examine the alien’s eligibility for admission.” Saavedra
13
Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1201(h)). Any
14

15 suggestion to the contrary by Plaintiffs is incorrect.

16

Fourth, the APA affords no relief to the U.S. citizen and LPR plaintiffs who claim a

17 constitutionally-protected interest in their family life that would entitle them to judicial review of

18 a consular officer’s visa refusal decision. APA review for arbitrary and capricious decision-

19 making is incompatible with the limitations imposed by the doctrine of consular
20 nonreviewability, which qualifies as one of the “limitations on judicial” review that overcomes 21 the APA’s presumption of reviewability. See 5 U.S.C. § 702(1) (“Nothing herein . . . affects
22
other limitations on judicial review . . . .”); Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1160-62 (the APA does
23

24
9 Again, no plaintiff alleges that her visa application has been denied.

25

10 Insofar as Plaintiffs are reasserting constitutional claims under the APA, their claims

necessarily fail for the reasons stated earlier.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 16

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 17 of 21

not disturb the general rule that no judicial review is available regarding the decision to exclude
1
an alien from the United States). Because any judicial review of those plaintiffs’ claims would
2
3 necessarily be limited to whether the decisions qualify as facially legitimate and bona fide,
4 review under the APA does not apply. Id.; Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770.

5

Finally, with respect to Plaintiffs’ request for relief under the Mandamus Act, their claim

6 fails because they do not identify any discrete agency action that is legally required. See Norton

7 v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63-64 (2004). To the extent Plaintiffs claim that

8 Congress’s delegation through § 1182(f) is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), § 1152(a)(1)(A)
9
does not address—and thus does not circumscribe—the President’s authority under § 1182(f).
10
Indeed, an immigrant visa does not entitle an alien to admission to the United States, and even if
11
an alien is issued a valid visa, he is subject to being denied admission to this country when he
12
arrives at the border. 8 U.S.C. § 1201(h); see, e.g., Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325, 330 (7th Cir.
13
2010). There is thus no inconsistency between § 1152(a)(1)(A) and the President’s issuance of
14
15 the Executive Order under § 1182(f).

16

B. The Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Any Irreparable Harm

17

At this time, Plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm. Irreparable harm represents a loss

18 that cannot possibly be remedied at the conclusion of the litigation: “The possibility that

19 adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary
20 course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.” Sampson v. Murray,
21 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974). Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to
22
warrant granting a preliminary injunction. Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d
23
466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to
24
establish standing; they must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 17

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 18 of 21

preliminary injunctive relief. Los Angeles Mem. Coliseum Comm. v. Nat’l Football League, 634
1

F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980).
2

3

In the first instance, given that Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13,769 is presently

4 enjoined by this Court, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate any immediately threatened injury to them

5 in the absence of a second injunction being entered. Rather, the existing injunction already gives

6 Plaintiffs the benefit of whatever relief their requested preliminary injunction could provide.

7 “Under these circumstances . . . injunctive relief ‘is not now needed to guard against any present
8 or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm.’” Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166,
9
1174 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 142 (2010)). At this time,
10
“Plaintiffs are unliklely to face irreparable substantive harm,” but “if a subsequent” development
11
brings Section 3(c) back into force, Plaintiffs “then may challenge it and seek appropriate
12
preliminary relief.” Center for Food Safety, 636 F.3d at 1174.
13
Even putting aside the threshold problem of an already-existing injunction, Plaintiffs do
14
15 not meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ claims of injury relate to
16 immigrant visa-holding and non-visa-holding individuals’ inability to enter the United States.
17 (See generally Compl. ¶¶ 51-92.) These claims fail for several reasons. First, with respect to the

18 non-visa-holding individuals who have not completed the steps to perfect the visa application

19 process, they are not affected by any provision of the Executive Order and therefore lack
20 standing. (See Compl. ¶ 51-76.) Second, the Executive Order imposes only a suspension, not a
21 permanent ban, on entry of individuals from the designated countries. Third, any claim that a
22
visa applicant or her petitioning U.S. citizen or LPR parent will suffer irreparable harm as a
23
result of the 90-day suspension period is too attenuated to satisfy standing. An applicant for an
24
immigration benefit has no entitlement to approval of such, and certainly the petitioner has no
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 18

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 19 of 21

cognizable right to have an application adjudicated within 90 days. Nor can Plaintiffs base their
1
request for injunctive relief on the claim that other entities that are not before this Court will
2
3 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.11 E.g., Caribbean Marine
4 Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“At a minimum, a plaintiff seeking
5 preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate that it will be exposed to irreparable harm.”)

6 (emphasis added). Finally, to the extent that there are aliens with concrete travel plans who have

7 not been permitted to enter the country, Plaintiffs do not allege that those aliens have sought, let

8 alone been denied, a case-specific waiver as provided for in the Executive Order.

9
C. The Balance of Harms and Public Interest Require Denial of Relief
10
The final two factors required for preliminary injunctive relief—balancing of the harm to
11
the opposing party and the public interest—merge when the government is the opposing party.
12
See, e.g., Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). Here, courts must “pay particular regard for
13
the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Weinberger v.
14

15 Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312–13 (1982).

16

Plaintiffs cannot and do not make any concrete showing of how their alleged irreparable

17 harm will outweigh the threatened harm that an injunction would cause. Indeed, Plaintiffs fail to

18 acknowledge any significant potential harm to them or the public. Any order that enjoins a

19 governmental entity from lawfully enforcing our immigration laws and executive orders related
20 to national security and foreign policy constitutes an irreparable injury that weighs heavily
21 against the entry of injunctive relief. See, e.g., New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434
22
U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977). In this vein, the Supreme Court has specifically acknowledged that
23
“[f]ew interests can be more compelling than a nation’s need to ensure its own security.” Wayte
24

25
11 See supra at n.2.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 19

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 20 of 21

v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 611 (1985). What was true then is still true today: the Court
1
should not enter injunctive relief that overrides the President’s national security and foreign
2
3 policy decision.

4

CONCLUSION

5

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’

6 request for a preliminary injunction.

7

DATED this 27th day of February, 2017.

8

Respectfully submitted,

9

CHAD A. READLER

10

Acting Assistant Attorney General

11

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY

Director

12

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

13

GISELA A. WESTWATER

14

Assistant Director

15

/s/ Stacey I. Young

16

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Bar #499324 Senior Litigation Counsel

17

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

18

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

19

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

20

Telephone: (202) 598-2445

Fax: (202) 305-7000

21

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 20

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 40 Filed 02/27/17 Page 21 of 21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
2
3 Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of 4 record for the Plaintiffs.

5

DATED this 27th day of February, 2017.

6

7

/s/ Stacey I. Young

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Nar #499324

8

Senior Litigation Counsel

9

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

10

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

11

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

12

Telephone: (202) 305-7171

Fax: (202) 305-7000

13

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

14

15

16 17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 21

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 15

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor; Reema Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR 11 Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Ahmed

12 Mohammed Ahmed ALI; E.A., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals and on
13 behalf of others similarly situated,

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

14

Plaintiffs,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15 v. NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR:
16 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States MARCH 3, 2017

17 of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
18 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

19 SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

20 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori

SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 21 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL

22 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, Acting Director of National Intelligence,

23
Defendants.

24

25

26

27

28
PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 15

1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of Executive Order 13,769 (EO). 82 Fed. Reg. 8977
3
(2017). Defendants argue that there is no likelihood of success on the merits despite the fact that
4
both this Court and the Ninth Circuit already have held to the contrary. Washington v. Trump,
5
No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16012 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017); Washington
6
v. Trump, 847 F.3d. 1151, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017). Moreover,
7
despite Defendants’ protestations, the injunction sought is narrowly focused on a particular
8
9 harm: the EO’s unlawful discrimination targeting Plaintiffs and proposed class members seeking
10 immigrant visas, purporting to bar the entry and suspend adjudication of all immigrant visa
11 applications based—not on any individual determination, but instead—on the applicants’
12 nationality or country of birth. This invidious form of discrimination harkens back to the
13 original immigration laws that tainted our country’s history by giving preference to western

14 Europeans. See, e.g., Immigration Act of 1924, including the National Origins Act, and Asian

15 Exclusion Act, Pub. L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153 (May 26, 1924). Fortunately, Congress long ago

16 rejected such a system, and, in further acknowledgement of the injustice of this history,

17 introduced an anti-discrimination provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The

18 law now explicitly states that no person shall be “discriminated against in the issuance of an

19 immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of

20 residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). Tellingly, Defendants do not attempt to explain how the

21 EO can be interpreted to comply with the anti-discrimination statute. This is critical, as the
22 Ninth Circuit in Washington, to date, has not addressed any statutory claims challenging the EO.
23
It is also critical because Defendants, while vigorously disputing the standing of the plaintiffs in
24
Washington, admitted in oral argument before the Ninth Circuit in that case that individuals like
25
Plaintiffs and proposed class members would have standing to seek injunctive relief.
26
Moreover, as both this Court and the Ninth Circuit have recognized, Plaintiffs are likely
27
to prevail on their claims that Defendants’ policies violated fundamental constitutional rights.
28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 15

1
Defendants continue to defend their actions, however, by relying on 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii), a provision that relates only to whether individuals may enter the country
3
on a temporary basis without filing any application (under the visa waiver program), which is
4
completely untethered from the immigrant visa process. Dkt. 40 at 2.
5
Until there is an order from the Court addressing the merits of the legal challenges to the
6
Defendants’ program discriminating against persons seeking immigrant visas based on their
7
national origin or place of birth and religion, Plaintiffs and proposed class members remain in
8

9 imminent danger and continue to face irreparable harm, regardless of any future successor orders.

10

II. ARGUMENT

11 A.
12

Defendants Do Not Rebut Plaintiffs’ Showing of Likely Success on The Merits. 1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on Their INA, APA, and Mandamus Claims.

13

Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their claims that Defendants

14 violated both 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), Dkt. 1 ¶¶107-109, and the Administrative Procedure Act

15 (APA), id. ¶110, and that they warrant mandamus relief, id. ¶¶111-114. See Alliance for the

16 Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (requiring only “serious questions

17 going to the merits” where “balance of hardships tips sharply towards the plaintiffs” and other

18 factors are met). Significantly, Defendants do not challenge the substance of Plaintiffs’

19 argument that § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits a nationality-based bar on adjudication and issuance of,

20 and entry on, immigrant visas, beyond a brief and unsupported allegation that the statute “does

21 not circumscribe” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). See Dkt. 40 at 17. However, a plain reading of the statute

22 in light of the canons of statutory interpretation demonstrates that § 1152(a)(1)(A) does limit

23 executive authority to suspend entry pursuant to § 1182(f). See Dkt. 9 at 10-11.

24

Rather than addressing Plaintiffs’ independent claim regarding the statutory bar on

25 national origin-based discrimination, Defendants conflate this with Plaintiffs’ APA claim and

26 attempt to challenge the scope of review over the latter on four grounds. Even combined, these
27
arguments are unavailing. First, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i) does not bar an APA claim. On its face, that
28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 15

1
statute speaks only to Defendants’ authority to “revoke” an individual visa, while Plaintiffs here
2
challenge a broader array of actions, including categorical revocation. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 ¶110
3
(challenging “suspending the processing of Plaintiffs’ immigrant visas, and/or categorically
4
invalidating or revoking already issued immigrant visas”). The text and history of § 1201(i) and
5
regulations referring to the statute further show that it authorizes, and correspondingly limits
6
judicial review of, individualized visa revocation decisions—not a class-wide revocation of visas
7
based on national origin. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i) (referring only to issuance and revocation
8
9 of “a visa” to “any alien”); 22 C.F.R. § 41.122 (same); H.R. Rep. No. 1365, 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N.
10 1653, 1688 (1952) (legislative history of predecessor version of § 1201(i), considering need for

11 administrative review body for individual visa adjudications but deciding that the existing system

12 would allow for sufficient advice to officers deciding “complex individual cases”).

13

Second, Plaintiffs do not purport to rely upon a “right of admission” into the United

14 States for their APA claim. See Dkt. 40 at 16. Instead, they challenge the failure to lawfully

15 adjudicate and issue immigrant visas and the unlawful class-wide invalidation and revocation of

16 visas. Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants’ resulting denial of their (or their family

17 member’s or employee’s) opportunity to seek admission and have their applications for

18 admission lawfully adjudicated—not a guarantee that they will be admitted to the United States

19 after an individualized inspection. Cf. St. Cyr v. INS, 533 U.S. 289, 307 (2001) (acknowledging

20 the “distinction between eligibility for discretionary relief . . . and the favorable exercise of

21 discretion”); United States v. Copeland, 376 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing “the
22 distinction between a right to seek relief and the right to that relief itself”).
23
Third, Plaintiffs are not barred from seeking APA review of the categorical denial of
24
entry and visa issuance even under the separate standards which govern review of individualized
25
visa determinations. See Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *18 (distinguishing
26
between challenges to the “promulgation of sweeping immigration policy,” and “the application
27
of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an
28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 15

1
individual visa application”); see also infra at 6 (discussing Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977),
2
and the applicability of Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)).
3
Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs failed to state an APA claim because the President is
4
not an agency under the statute misapprehends Plaintiffs’ distinct statutory and APA claims.
5
Plaintiffs challenge Defendant Trump’s issuance of the EO under the INA, as it clearly violates
6
§ 1152(a)(1)(A).1 Plaintiffs’ APA claim, Dkt. 1 ¶110, concerns implementation of the EO by the
7
other Defendants. Defendants make no claim that the actions of these Defendants—including
8
9 the U.S. Department of State, which revoked and suspended processing and issuance of visas on
10 a class wide-basis—are not subject to APA review. Nor do Defendants suggest that the
11 applicability of the APA to the presidency impacts the remaining claims against Defendant

12 Trump. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (permitting 13 review of a president’s actions for constitutionality and statutory authority).2

14

Finally, Defendants’ challenge to the mandamus claim is also insufficient, because it is

15 based on a misstatement of the required agency action at issue. See Dkt. 40 at 17. Plaintiffs

16 challenge Defendants’ blanket refusal to lawfully—i.e., consistent with the INA and the

17 Constitution—adjudicate both their immigrant visa applications and their applications for

18 admission at U.S. ports of entry; they do not challenge the denial of an immigrant visa

19 application or application for admission in one particular case. See supra at 3 (discussing the

20 difference between denial of the opportunity to seek admission and denial of admission). Thus,

21 Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their INA, APA, and mandamus claims.

22

2. Plaintiffs Ali, Dahman, and Ali Are Likely to Succeed on Their Due Process

Claims.
23

24 1

For this claim, the APA serves to waive sovereign immunity only. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-

Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 510 n.4 (1999) (Souter, J., dissenting) (“This waiver of immunity [under

25 § 702] is not restricted by the requirement of final agency action that applies to suits under the [APA].”) (citing

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 523-526 (9th Cir. 1989)); Raz v. Lee, 343 F.3d 936,

26 938 (8th Cir. 2003) (§ 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity not limited to cases brought under the APA).

2

In a footnote, Defendants argue that there is no standard under which to review Defendant Trump’s

27 determinations. See Dkt. 40 at 15 n.8; but see Estate of Saunders v. C.I.R., 745 F.3d 953, 962 n.8 (9th Cir. 2014)

(“Arguments raised only in footnotes . . . are generally deemed waived.”). This is patently inaccurate where

28 Plaintiffs allege that the determinations violated a clear statutory standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1152(A)(1)(a).

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 15

1
Plaintiffs Juweiya Ali, Reema Dahman, and Ahmed Ali allege, on behalf of themselves
2
and other U.S. citizen and LPR immigrant visa petitioners, that the EO infringes on their due
3
process rights to be free from arbitrary government action that—without regard for the
4
constraints Congress has imposed or the boundaries of the Constitution—deprives them of their
5
liberty interest in their family lives, marriages, and ability to raise children. Dkt. 1 ¶¶119-123.
6
As plainly stated in the Complaint, Plaintiffs A.F.A., G.E., and E.A., all of whom were outside
7
the United States at the time the complaint was filed, are not raising due process claims. Id.3 For
8

9 this reason, Defendants’ argument that “[t]he due process claims of the nonresident, unadmitted

10 [noncitizen] plaintiffs must fail” is nonsensical. Dkt. 40 at 10-11.

11

Furthermore, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs Ali, Dahman, and Ali may

12 properly raise due process claims. Nor could they; Defendants already have acknowledged that

13 U.S. citizens can raise constitutional challenges to the EO. See Feb. 7, 2017 oral argument in

14 Washington, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir.), at 24:25-24:41, available at

15 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000010885 (Judge Clifton: “If the

16 order said Muslims cannot be admitted, would anybody have standing to challenge that?” August

17 E. Flentji, Special Counsel: “I think Mandel and Din give a route to make a constitutional

18 challenge that if there were such an order. It would be by U.S. citizen with a connection to

19 someone seeking entry”). Because strong constitutional protections likewise extend to LPRs, it

20 follows that this “route” is similarly available to Plaintiff Dahman. See Washington, 2017 U.S.
21 App. LEXIS 2369 at *24 (holding that “[t]he procedural protections provided by the Fifth 22 Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens” and discussing cases).4
23
Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood that they will prevail on their due process
24
argument. See id. at *29 (“[I]t is enough for us to conclude that the Government has failed to
25

26 3 4

Plaintiff E.A. reunited with her family in the U.S. on February 5, 2017 under the Washington injunction. See also Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *27-28 (rejecting the government’s request to narrow

27 the temporary restraining order because it “extends beyond [LPRs], and covers aliens who cannot assert cognizable liberty interests in connection with travelling into and out of the United States”).

28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 15

1
establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.”). It is well
2
established that the federal courts review due process claims under a de novo—not a “facially
3
legitimate and bona fide”—standard of review. See, e.g., McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., 498
4
U.S. 479, 493 (1991); Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011).
5
Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, see Dkt. 40 at 11 n.4, the Supreme Court’s decision
6
in Fiallo, does not support review of the EO under a facially legitimate and bona fide standard.
7
In Fiallo, the Court upheld the constitutionality of an immigration statute that defined the terms
8
9 “child” and “parent” as applied to three sets of unwed biological fathers who sought to
10 immigrate their offspring. 430 U.S. at 788-90. Significantly, the constitutional claim at issue in
11 that case was whether the statutory provisions violated the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.
12 Id. at 791. Here, there is no comparable constitutional challenge to any statutory provisions;
13 rather, the constitutional claim is whether the EO violates the Fifth Amendment, and indeed,

14 whether it conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).

15

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit held—rather than simply “suggest[ed],” Dkt. 40 at 11 n.

16 4—that the facially legitimate and bona fide standard set forth in Mandel does not apply to a

17 challenge to the EO. Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *17-18. As Plaintiffs argue

18 but Defendants seem to ignore, the Ninth Circuit clarified that Mandel is limited to review of

19 individualized visa denials. Id. The EO, in contrast, is a categorical bar to entry of immigrant

20 visa holders and bar to adjudication of immigrant visa applications: it is not individualized at all.5
21 What is more, Mandel actually supports Plaintiffs’ standing. Dkt. 9 at 6-7.
22
3. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on their Equal Protection Claim.
23
Plaintiffs and proposed class members who are outside of the United States may
24
challenge an order that blatantly discriminates against them on the basis of national origin and
25
religion. Although both Congress and the Executive have plenary power over immigration,
26

27 5

Moreover, even under the facially legitimate and bona fide standard the EO is unlawful because, on its face,

it discriminates on the basis of national origin in conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) and on the basis of religion,

28 and is motivated, at least in part, by an animus against a religion and nationalities. See Dkt. 9 at 7.

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 15

1
neither branch may execute this power in violation of the Constitution. Dkt. 9 at 13 (citing
2
cases); see also Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 974 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]the
3
entry fiction does not preclude substantive constitutional protection.”). In addition, Rasul v.
4
Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 484 (2004), further stands for the proposition that constitutional protections
5
extend to noncitizens outside the United States who are subject to an abuse of plenary power.
6
Moreover, because nationality and religion are “suspect classifications,” claims of
7
discrimination on these bases are subject to strict scrutiny. See Dkt. 9 at 13-15 (citing cases);
8
9 United States v. Barajas-Guillen, 632 F.2d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 1980) (applying rational basis
10 review in an immigration case because no “suspect classification”—which would “demand”
11 strict scrutiny—was involved); Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 336 (9th Cir. 2011)
12 (same). Defendants have not rebutted Plaintiffs’ showing that the EO fails under this test
13 because: 1) it discriminates, on its face, based on nationality; and 2) animus against Muslims was

14 a motivating factor. See Dkt. 9 at 14 (citing Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015)).

15

Defendants attempt to dismiss the facially discriminatory nature of the EO by arguing

16 that it satisfies rational basis review. Dkt. 40 at 13-14. But even under this standard, the EO

17 fails, for it is “ludicrously ineffectual.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 (1982). Defendants

18 contend that the EO—which targets all nationals of the seven countries, including children and

19 anyone who derived citizenship from any of the seven countries but never resided in any of them,

20 see Omar Decl., Dkt. 19 at 2—satisfies rational basis because Defendant Trump has determined

21 that nationals from these countries “are associated with a heightened risk of terrorism.” Dkt. 40
22 at 13-14. Because there is no support for this determination, it has no “plausible” policy basis
23
and, furthermore, the “relationship of the classification to its goal [is] so attenuated as to render
24
the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11 (1992).
25
Defendants have submitted no evidence supporting the alleged national security rationale
26
here or to the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *32 (“The
27
Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the
28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 15

1
Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States”). To the contrary, leading national
2
security experts, including former Secretary of State John Kerry, indicate there is no plausible
3
policy basis, including security justification, for the EO. See Joint Declaration of Madeleine K.
4
Albright et al. at 2, Washington, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. 2017), ECF 28-2. Even a draft of
5
Defendants’ own post-hoc review concluded that the ban was ineffective. See Salama &
6
Caldwell, AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations, ASSOC. PRESS (Feb.
7
24, 2017), available at http://apne.ws/2ldKZtf. Thus, the relationship between the blanket ban
8
9 on all nationals from the seven countries and the alleged security risk is both arbitrary and
10 irrational.

11

With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim of religious discrimination, Defendants cite no cases

12 rebutting the application of strict scrutiny review. Religion is an “inherently suspect”

13 classification, City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976), and such classifications

14 must be narrowly tailored and justified by a compelling government interest. See, e.g., Ball v.

15 Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants’ sole defense against Plaintiffs’

16 allegation of animus is to claim that the order is facially neutral. Dkt. 40 at 14. Under well-

17 established equal protection law, courts may look behind a facially neutral law to determine

18 whether animus inhered in its passage. See, e.g., Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at

19 *30-31; Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–268

20 (1977). In examining whether a facially neutral action impermissibly targets a religion, a court

21 may consider “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of
22 events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or
23
administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the
24
decisionmaking body.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520,
25
540 (1993) (summarizing Village of Arlington Heights).
26
Here, Defendant Trump’s animus towards Islam is well-documented and the specific
27
series of events leading to the EO makes the anti-Islam animus clear. See, e.g., Dkt 1. ¶¶48-50;
28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 15

1
Dkt. 9 at 14-15.6 Defendants’ suggestion that the EO is not motivated by animus against Islam
2
simply because “the plain language of the Executive Order includes nothing discussing Islam,”
3
Dkt. 40 at 14, is squarely foreclosed by the evidence and the fact Defendant Trump stated, while
4
signing the EO, that he was “establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists
5
out.” Dan Merica, Trump signs executive order to keep out ‘radical Islamic terrorists’, CNN
6
(Jan. 30, 2017), available at http://cnn.it/2jeLXsW. These contemporaneous statements are of
7
the type that courts routinely examine in determining whether animus exists. See, e.g., Lukumi,
8
9 508 U.S. at 541-542 (finding animus behind a facially neutral law after examining the statements
10 city councilmembers made disparaging Santeria).
11 B. Plaintiffs Have Shown Irreparable Harm, Warranting Preliminary Injunctive Relief.

12

Plaintiffs have provided ample evidence showing the irreparable harm they will suffer in

13 the absence of preliminary relief. These harms—most notably, prolonged family separation,

14 emotional distress and anxiety, extended absences, lost employment, deprivation of opportunities

15 for professional advancement, and not least of all, violation of constitutional rights, see Dkt. 9 at

16 18-22—are not the types of harm that “would be easily calculable and compensable in damages.”

17 Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court of State of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 471 (9th Cir. 1984).
18 Such harms are precisely what preliminary injunctive relief is designed to address. See, e.g., 19 Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *33 (recognizing that “separated families,” inter 20 alia, constitute “substantial injur[y] and even irreparable harm[]”); Arizona Dream Act Coalition 21 v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (loss of opportunity to pursue professional 22 advancement can constitute irreparable harm).
23

24 6

In addition, Defendant Trump has previously said there was “no way” he would allow Muslims to “flow

25 in” to the United States, see Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Mar 22, 2016, 09:59 PM),

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/712473816614772736, and linked his proposed nationality-based ban to

26 Islam by claiming that “[w]e are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into the West through a failed immigration

system,” Donald J. Trump Addresses Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security, Donald Trump Campaign

27 (June 13, 2016). More than three weeks after signing the EO, Defendant Trump continued to link it to Islam: “I’ve

taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorist[s] the hell out of our country.” President Donald Trump,

28 Remarks at Rally in Melbourne, Florida (Feb. 18, 2017), available at http://pbpo.st/2kLCMfr.

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 11 of 15

1
Defendants’ threshold argument—that Plaintiffs “cannot demonstrate any immediately
2
threatened injury” because Section 3(c) of the EO is currently enjoined, Dkt. 40 at 18—fails to
3
cite any case law for the novel proposition that temporary injunctive relief provided in a separate
4
case obviates the need for action to enjoin the conduct in question on behalf of the parties before
5
the Court. This is especially true where Defendants vigorously assert that the plaintiffs in
6
Washington do not have standing to seeking injunctive relief, and explicitly acknowledged that
7
individuals like Plaintiffs have standing to present the instant claims. See Feb. 7, 2017 oral
8
9 argument in Washington at 24:25-24:41. That case is being heard on an expedited schedule, with
10 the parties due to complete their briefing by April 5, 2017. Washington, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir.
11 2017), ECF 180. Given the grave interests at stake and the irreparable harm faced by Plaintiffs
12 and proposed class members in this case, time spent subsequently litigating this motion could,
13 again, wreak havoc on their lives, including the lives of those most vulnerable—the young, the

14 elderly and those in dangerous, war-torn countries. See, e.g., Dkts. 11-25. An injunction in this

15 case could remain in place, however, even if the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Washington

16 plaintiffs, because the Ninth Circuit did not address one of the primary claims in this case, the

17 statutory claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1). Moreover, Defendants continue to threaten to

18 unleash a successor EO which could similarly target immigrant visa petitioners and beneficiaries

19 based on their nationality or country of birth. Dkt. 40 at 3. In light of the rapid pace at which

20 Washington is progressing before the Ninth Circuit, and Defendants’ ongoing assertions that they

21 have the authority to suspend adjudication and issuance of visas based on nationality or country
22 of birth, Plaintiffs and proposed class members are readily able to demonstrate that they are
23
threatened with imminent harm.
24
Defendants’ remaining arguments fail to acknowledge the injurious effect of delay. The
25
allegation that “non-visa-holding individuals” are not affected by the EO, Dkt. 40 at 18, is belied
26
by the fact that, pursuant to the EO, Defendants suspended the processing of immigrant visa
27
applications. See Dkt. 10, Ex. A at 1 (announcing that Department of State had “temporarily
28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 12 of 15

1
stopped scheduling appointments and halted processing of immigrant visa applications” for those
2
from the countries listed in the EO). Thus, Plaintiffs Ali and Dahman face further agony caused
3
by prolonged separation from Plaintiffs A.F.A. and G.E., respectively. And while Defendants
4
highlight that the EO “imposes only a suspension, not a permanent ban,” presently the EO
5
imposes a ban of indefinite duration. See, e.g., Dkt. 10, Ex. A at 1 (Department of State noting
6
that “we cannot predict when” new appointments will be scheduled again and urging those with
7
medical appointments to cancel them, as the results are “only valid for six (6) months and we
8
9 cannot predict when your visa interview will be rescheduled”). Indeed, the EO itself
10 contemplates delay beyond the initial 90-day period. See EO § 3(e). This is especially true
11 where the EO establishes prerequisite conditions for lifting the stay that countries without a fully
12 functioning central government, such as Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, have no practical possibility
13 of meeting. Such additional, potentially indefinite, delay in the processing of their immigrant

14 visa applications will result in irreparable harm to the named Plaintiffs and putative class

15 members, prolonging their separation from family members, safety, healthcare, and professional

16 opportunities. See, e.g., Dkt. 9 at 21-22 (summarizing declarations decrying missed childbirths,

17 graduations, and special holidays); see generally Dkts. 11-25.7

18

These harms are not speculative or attenuated. They do not rest on unsupported factual

19 allegations, but on declarations from Plaintiffs and putative class members directly harmed by

20 the EO. See Dkts. 11-25. Defendants attempt to obfuscate the issue by suggesting that Plaintiffs 21 are alleging an entitlement to approval of their applications and to their adjudication within 90 22 days. Dkt. 40 at 18-19. But Plaintiffs are simply demanding that the government process their 23 applications in the non-discriminatory manner mandated by Congress and the Constitution.8
24

25 7

Defendants ask the Court to ignore the harms of U.S.-based employers, erroneously asserting that they “are

not before this Court.” Dkt. 40 at 19. In fact, they are encompassed within the class definition, which includes all

26 “immigrant” visa petitioners and applicants and is not limited to family-based immigrant visas. Dkt. 1 ¶97. See

also, e.g., Dkt. 1 ¶28; Dkt. 3 at 1; Dkt. 21; Dkt. 24 ¶8.

27 8

Nor does the fact that Plaintiffs have not alleged that immigrant visa holders have sought or been denied a

“case-specific waiver,” Dkt. 40 at 19, make their harm any less direct. First, it is unclear whether the waivers are

28 being granted, or what the proper mechanism for requesting such a waiver is. Cf. Washington, 2017 U.S. App.

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 13 of 15

1
Plaintiffs and putative class members are thus asking to not be made to suffer unnecessary and

2
wanton harm because of an unlawful executive order.

3
C.
4

The Balance of Harms and Public Interest Require a Grant of Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of harms and public interest strongly favor
5

granting injunctive relief. National security is not the public’s only interest: the public also has
6

strong interests “in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination,”
7

Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *34, and in ensuring that the Government’s conduct
8

9 comports with the requirements of the law, see, e.g., Small v. Avanti Health Sys., LLC, 661 F.3d

10 1180, 1197 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he public interest favors applying federal law correctly.”).

11

Defendants’ argument to the contrary fails. It ignores the ample evidentiary support

12 Plaintiffs provided in support of their motion. Compare Dkt. 40 at 19 with Dkt. 9 at 18-22 and

13 Dkts. 11-25. Instead, Defendants argue only that courts should refrain from entering injunctive

14 relief “that overrides the President’s national security and foreign policy decision,” Dkt. 40 at 20,

15 relying on the disputed assumption that the president acts in a lawful manner. The Ninth Circuit,

16 moreover, has made clear that any suggestion that executive actions in the field of immigration

17 policy and national security are unreviewable by the judiciary “runs contrary to the fundamental

18 structure of our constitutional democracy.” Washington, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 at *15.

19

III. CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ original motion and herein, the Court should grant

21 Plaintiffs’ motion.

22
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2017.
23

24 s/Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
25

s/Mary Kenney Mary Kenney, pro hac vice

26 LEXIS 2369 at *33 (noting the Government “has offered no explanation for how [the discretionary waiver]
27 provisions would function in practice”). Second, in dismissing a similar argument, the Ninth Circuit stated that the Government has not “explained how the Executive Order could realistically be administered only in parts such that
28 the injuries [to affected individuals and entities] would be avoided.” Id.

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 14 of 15

1 s/Glenda Aldana Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No.
2 46987
3
s/Maria Lucia Chavez 4 Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

s/Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac vice
s/Melissa Crow Melissa Crow, pro hac vice

5 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 6 615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA
98104 (206) 957-8611 7 (206) 587-4025 (fax)
8
9 s/Trina Realmuto Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice
10
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball 11 Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice
12
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 13 OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 14 Boston, MA 02108 15 (617) 227-9727
(617) 227-5495 (fax)
16

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 507-7512 (202) 742-5619 (fax)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 50 Filed 03/03/17 Page 15 of 15

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
I hereby certify that on March 3, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
3
of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties
4
of record.
5

6 s/ Glenda Aldana 7 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLS.’ REPLY ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 54 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 4

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor;

10 Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh

SECOND DECLARATION OF MATT

11 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma

ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

12 minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

13 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14

Plaintiffs,

v.
15

16 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
17 General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
18 TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 19 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of 20 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori 21 SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 22 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting 23 Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 24 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, 25 Acting Director of National Intelligence,

26

Defendants.

27

28

SECOND ADAMS DECL. ISO PLS.’ TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 54 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4

1

2 I, Matt Adams, declare as follows:

3

4

1) I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this case. I submit this declaration in

5 support of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary

6 Injunction.

7

2) I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness,

8 I could and would testify completely as set forth below.

9

10

Notice to Defendants of Motion for Preliminary and Possible Emergency Relief

11

3) On March 7, 2017, counsel for the parties conducted a telephonic status

12 conference pursuant to FRCP 26(f). On that telephone call, I advised Defendants’ counsel,
13 Stacey I. Young, that Plaintiffs would file an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order 14 and an amended complaint no later than Friday, March 10, 2017. I further advised Ms. Young 15 that Plaintiffs would request a hearing on the emergency motion for a temporary restraining
16
order for either Tuesday, March 14, 2017 or Wednesday, March 15, 2017. Ms. Young did not
17
object to those dates.
18

19
Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
20
4) Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct redacted copy of an email sent by
21
donotreply@usvisa-info.com on March 7, 2017 to Shahrzad Shahri, an immigrant visa applicant
22
scheduled for a visa interview on March 21, 2017. Ms. Shahri forwarded the email to my
23
colleague Mozhdeh Oskouian, the Directing Attorney of the Seattle office of the Northwest
24
Immigrant Rights Project on March 7, 2017.
25

26

27

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of Washington and the United

28 States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

SECOND ADAMS DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 54 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4

1
Executed in Seattle, WA on the 10th day of March, 2017.

2
By:

3

s/Matt Adams

4

Matt Adams

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND ADAMS DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 54 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on March 10, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the

3
Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of
4
record for all Defendants. With respect to new Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
5
the Attorney General, current counsel for Defendants, Stacy Young, has advised that she will not
6
accept service for the agency. Therefore, along with a copy of the amended complaint and second
7
motion for class certification, I arranged for personal delivery of these documents and
8
corresponding proposed orders to:
9

10

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

11

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

12
as well as the mailing of these documents by U.S. certified mail to:
13

14

U.S. Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

15

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001
16

17

and

18

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Office of the Chief Counsel

19

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

20

Washington, DC 20229

21 Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 10, 2017.

22 s/ Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
23 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 24 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104 25 (206) 957-8611
(206) 587-4025 (fax)
26

27

28

SECOND ADAMS DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 54-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A

3/10/2017

Case 2:1N7o-rcthvw-e0st0Im1m3i5gr-aJntLRRightsDProojcecut mMaeil n­ Ftw5d4: F-W1: ImFpiolretadnt U0.3S/E1xe0c/u1tiv7e OrPdear Ignfeorm2atoiofn 2
Glenda Aldana Madrid <glenda@nwirp.org>

Fwd: FW: Important U.S Executive Order Information
Mozhdeh Oskouian <mozhdeh@nwirp.org> To: Malou Chávez <malou@nwirp.org>, Glenda Aldana Madrid <glenda@nwirp.org>

Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:56 AM

­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­

From: shahrzad shahri

>

Date: Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:20 AM

Subject: Fwd: Important U.S Executive Order Information

To: Mozhdeh Oskouian <mozhdeh@nwirp.org>

­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­

From: "The Visa Information Service" <donotreply@usvisa­info.com>

Date: 7 Mar 2017 21:45

Subject: Important U.S Executive Order Information

To: <

>

Cc:

Dear Applicant,

A U.S. Executive Order signed on March 6 affects visa applicants who are nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. If you are a national of one of these countries, please review the information at this link https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important­announcement.html before paying an MRV fee, scheduling an interview appointment, or attending your interview.

If you have questions, you may send an email to coves+nbr@visaops.net; however, we are unable provide case specific guidance so please monitor travel.state.gov for further updates.

Best regards,

The CSRA Visa Appointment and Information Service Team

This message was sent to

from:

The Visa Information Service | donotreply@usvisa­info.com | CSC | 15000 conference center | chantilly, va 20151

Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail­mprofile.pl?r=74841821&l=123937&s=XPHI&m=947309&c=349536

EXHIBIT A TO SECOND ADAMS DECL. ISO PLS.’

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=8dd48d2000&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15ab81422cdefacd&siml=15ab81422cdefacd

1/1

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 55 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 55 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4

6. I went back to Kenya in 2004 to see my children and their mother. In 2004 my wife

2
became pregnant and gave birth to our third child,

on January 29, 2005. After I came

3
back to America my wife at the time, and their mother, left our children in Kenya and asked me
4

to divorce her in 2008. She left the three children and I begged their grandfather, their mother's
5

father, to look after my children. Seven years later, on April 4, 2015, my children's grandfather
6

passed away. My children didn't have close family to look after them. Their neighbors were
7

8 watching after my children and helping them out with groceries and shopping.

7.
9

I reach my children by phone, I call them every day ask their day and health. They

10 currently live by themselves in Kenya, Nairobi. I have visited my children's three times in 2013,

11 beginning 2016, and middle of2016.

12 8.

I have filed the visa immigration petition on May 23 , 2014 for my three children and I

13 paid the filing fee for each. Two months later I got a letter that said approved on July 27, 2014.

14 They have taken their medical examination test on October 24, 2016 because they had an

15 interview appointment in November 2016, but that was cancelled. They were then scheduled for

16 an interview on March 20, 2017.

17 9.

Their interview appointment that was scheduled for March 20, 2017, was then canceled

18 based on the executive order signed on January 27, 2017. I received an email on January 28,

19 2017 canceling their upcoming visa appointment in compliance with the new executive order

20 directives.

21 10. I did not receive any notice from the consulate since the day they canceled my children's
22 interviews. I tried calling and I also sent emails to the U.S. Consulate in Nairobi asking about my
23
children's case. They had not responded to me until I was forced to hire an attorney for help. My
24
attorney sent a request for a follow up and the U.S. Consulate finally responded.
25
11. I was able to schedule an immigrant visa appointment for my three children for March
26
13, 2017.
27

28

DECLARATION OF OLAD ISSA OMAR Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

-1

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 55 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4

12. Now that there is a new executive order that I understand will be in effect on March 16,
2
2017, three days after my children's immigrant visa appointment, I feel scared. Everytime we
3
hear about what the President is doing, I get terrified. I do not want this new executive order to
4
affect my children's case.
5
13. I received an email from the U.S. Consulate on March 7, 2017 telling me that there was a
6
new executive order. My children were born in Kenya, but are citizens of Somalia. They are
7
impacted by this order. The U.S. Consulate asked me to review the information at this link:
8
9 https://travel.state.govIcontent/travel/en/news/important-announcement. html.
10 14. The email is confusing, it does not tell me my children can still go to their appointment
11 on March 13, 2017.
12 15. The last time I have seen my children was in August 2016. I want my three children to
13 be here in America because I want them to live in a peaceful country. I want my children to learn

14 and get their education. They are feeling scared, lonely, and I'm scared for them how Nairobi is

15 changing. The environment where they lives is not safe, there are a lot of robberies and they have

16 been targeted when I send money to them. My two oldest daughters can't be out by themselves,

17 the neighbors are looking after my three children. I can't go back to them again because it's

18 expensive and I need to work to send them money while they can come here with me. I already

19 went to Nairobi three times.

20 16. When I heard about the March 6, 2017 executive order, I was scared for my health. I

21 could not sleep for two nights thinking about my children and our separation. I can't go be with

22 them because I need to work to provide financially for them. I need them here with me.

23
17.

I would kindly really appreciate if my children process goes faster so they could live with

24
their family, with their little sister and their two step-brothers. I always get scared when they call
25
me at midnight (because it's day time for them). But I ask myself before I answer, "Are they
26
doing okay?" My second daughter has been sick for a while now. I need my children's because I
27
always encourage them talking to them every day so they don't feel lonely. I want my children to
28

DECLARATION OF OLAD ISSA OMAR Case No. 2: 17-cv-00 135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

-2

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 55 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4

be here with my family members. I have been separated from my children since 1999. I have

2
seen them three times in 2013 and 2016 two times.

3
18.
4

I want the judge to know that I want my children desperately with me. They are the only

family I have in Nairobi. They are by themselves. My youngest daughter wishes their three older
5

siblings to be here with her. She always gets sad she sees other kids with older siblings playing. I
6

wish the ban can be stopped. Someone who is a U.S. citizen does not deserved to be banned frOJ
7

8 bringing their family together. We are Muslims. We are peaceful humans. We have the right to

be with our families too.
9

10

11

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing i

12 true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

13

14

Executed on this 9th the day of March, 2017, in Seattle, Washington.

15

16

17

Olad Issa Omar

18

19 20

21 22

23

24

25
26

27

28
DECLARATION OF OLAD ISSA OMAR Case No.2: 17-cv-00 135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

6 I5 Second Ave., Ste. 400

-3

Seattle, WA 98 I04

206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 56 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 3

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI, et al.,
11

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Plaintiffs,
12

13 v.

DECLARATION OF MOZHDEH OSKOUIAN

14 Donald TRUMP, et al.,

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

15

Defendants.

16

17

I, Mozhdeh Oskouian, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

18
1. I am over the age of eighteen, am competent to testify to the matters below, and make

19
this declaration based on personal knowledge.

20
2.

I am an attorney at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in Seattle, Washington. Our

21
office represents Mr. Gholamreza Shahri, an 84-year-old United States citizen, in conjunction

22
with his family visa petition for his daughter, Ms. Shahrzad Shahri, an Iranian citizen.
23

3.
24

Mr. Shahri has been recently diagnosed with various age-related illnesses and has had to

rely on Shahrzad Shahri, his youngest daughter, for care. For this reason, Mr. Shahri has had to
25

reside in Iran for longer periods than what he intended or preferred.
26

4. Mr. Shahri filed a family visa petition for his daughter on July 17, 2009 and paid the
27

28 required filing fee. The family visa petition was approved on October 25, 2011.

DECLARATION OF MOZHDEH OSKOUIAN Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

- 1

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 56 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 3

1
5.

In March 2016, Ms. Shahri’s priority date became current, meaning she could finally

2
begin the consular process to actually obtain an immigrant visa. Mr. Shahri and his three
3
children—two of whom are also United States citizens—were very glad when Ms. Shahri’s visa
4
number became current and she began consular processing.
5

6.
6

On December 28, 2016, Ms. Shahri received notice that she had been scheduled for an

immigrant visa interview in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on February 12, 2017. Ms.
7

Shahri purchased a plane ticket, reserved a hotel room, and incurred other necessary expenses in
8

9 preparation for her interview.

10 7. On January 28, 2017, Ms. Shahri received notice that due to the Executive Order issued

11 on January 27, 2017 her interview appointment had been cancelled. She was told that she would

12 be contacted when the National Visa Center was able to reschedule her immigrant visa interview.

13 On February 8, 2017, Ms. Shahri emailed the National Visa Center asking for clarification on the

14 process in light of the injunction against the Executive Order issued by the United States District

15 Court.

16 8. On February 10, 2017, Ms. Shahri received an updated notice from the National Visa

17 Center, informing her that United States embassies and consulates overseas have resumed

18 interviewing immigrant visa applicants. Ms. Shahri was rescheduled for an Immigrant Visa
19 interview on March 21, 2017.
20 9. Ms. Shahri again purchased a plane ticket, reserved hotel accommodations, scheduled her
21 medical examination, and made all other necessary arrangements to attend her interview. This
22 time, the expense of Ms. Shahri’s travel arrangements were even more substantial as none of the
23
expenses were refunded due to proximity of her interview date to the Iranian New Year.
24
10. On March 6, 2017, the Administration issued a new Executive Order, again banning
25
citizens of Iran and five other countries from travel to the United States. This ban is to go into
26
effect on March 16, 2017, five days prior to Ms. Shahri’s interview.
27

28

DECLARATION OF MOZHDEH OSKOUIAN Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

- 2

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 56 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 3

1
11. On March 7, 2017, Ms. Shahri received an email notice informing her of the March 6,
2
2017 executive order. It was unclear whether her March 21, 2017 interview would be cancelled.
3
Ms. Shahri is unable to recover the expenses she incurred in making the travel arrangements.
4
She intends to travel to Abu Dhabi to at least complete her medical examination, while she
5
awaits the scheduling of a third immigrant visa interview.
6
12. Mr. Shahri and Ms. Shahri are both worried over the future costs they will have to incur,
7
especially considering the unstable exchange rate between Iran’s rial and U.S. dollar. All of Mr.
8
9 Shahri’s children are worried about Mr. Shahri’s health and the uncertainty regarding when they
10 will be able to finally be reunited in light of the Administration’s chaotic immigration policies.

11

12

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

13 true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

14

15

Executed on this 9th day of March, 2017, in Seattle, Washington.

16

17

s/ Mozhdeh Oskouian

18

Mozhdeh Oskouian

Attorney

19

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

20

Seattle, Washington 98104

21

(206) 957-8623

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF MOZHDEH OSKOUIAN Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

- 3

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 57 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 3

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10
Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI, et al.,
11

Case No.: 2: 17-cv-00135-JLR

12
13 v.

Plaintiffs,

DECLARATION OF JOANNA FISCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

14 Donald TRUMP, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

I, Joanna Fischer, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

19 1. I am over the age of eighteen, am competent to testify to the matters below, and make

20 this declaration based on personal knowledge.

21 2. I am a United States citizen. I live in Rockville, Maryland. I am a paralegal at Feldman

22 And Associates, P.C..

23 3.

I was born in the United States, in 1985, to American parents. I was raised in Wichita,

24 Kansas. In 2015, after turning 30, I decided to travel to Iran as an adventure because I had just 25 turned 30 and my Iranian friends in America had always told me what a wonderful country it 26 was. While I was on this trip, I fell in love with the culture and also with the language, Farsi.
27

28
DECLARATION OF JOANNA FISCHER Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJEC

615 Second Ave., Ste. 40

-1

Seattle, WA 9810

206-957-861

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 57 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 3

4. Upon returning to the United States after the trip, I started to follow Farsi pages on 2
Facebook and Instagram because I wanted to learn the language better. One of the pages was a
3
fitness page for Iranians. I commented on a post there, and a man named Keivan Mokhtarinaseri
4

responded to my post in Farsi. I told him my Farsi was really bad and he offered to teach me the
5

language. We statied talking online and I soon fell in love with him.
6

7 5.

In early March, 2016, Keivan and I decided to go to Istanbul, Turkey to meet in person

8 after months of talking. We had talked about maybe getting married if the meeting went well

9 enough, and scheduled the marriage for the end of the trip so that we could be sure. Thankfully,

10 after 10 days together, we chose to get married. On March 12, 2016, Keivan and I got married in

11 Istanbul.

12 6.

Several months later, we met up again in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, after having decided

13 that we wanted to see each other again as soon as possible, after which we would save for the

14 visa petition. On July 29,2016, I submitted a petition for an immigrant visa for my husband. The

15 petition was approved on August 10, 2016. After paying all of the fees, we were scheduled for a

16 visa interview on January 24, 2017 in Yerevan, Armenia, one of the three U.S. Embassies that

17 processes visas for Iranians.

18 7.

On January 24, 2017, both Keivan and I went to Yerevan for the visa. He was

19 interviewed by the consular officer. After the interview went well, we were told that, like most

20 Iranians, Keivan would have to wait for administrative processing. My attorney told me that

21 administrative processing could take weeks or sometimes months, but afterwards Keivan would

22 likely be able to join me.

23
8.

On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued the first executive order. Because my

24
husband is from Iran I was terrified that he would not be able to join me. I was informed by my

25
attorney that the visa adjudication had stopped and that I would likely have to wait months 26
longer for my husband to join me. I immediately contacted my local Maryland representatives,
27
including Senator Benjamin Cardin. After the court issued a temporary restraining order, I talked
28

DECLARATION OF JOANNA FISCHER Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJEC

615 Second Ave., Ste. 40

-2

Seattle, WA 9810 206-957-861

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 57 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 3

with Senator Cardin's office and they contacted the embassy in Yerevan. They informed me on

2 February 24, 2017 that my husband's visa is still in administrative processing.

3
9.

The new executive order will keep my husband and I apart even longer. I am 31 and I

4

suffer from polycystic ovarian syndrome, which makes it very hard to conceive. I am concerned

5

about my fertility because Keivan and I want to have a child together and the longer we are
6

apart, the more difficult it is for me to get pregnant and the more risky any pregnancy would be.
7

8 10. Because of the possibility that my husband may not be able to join me in months, I have

9 gone so far as to consider whether we can both find jobs in a third country. I don't want to

10 abandon my life here in the United States, but I fear I might have to if my husband is separated

11 from me for too long.

12

13

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

14 true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

15

16 17 18

~~v~~. L Executed on this ninth day of March, 20···1·~"~j~•.. Rockville, Marylan~

.· "

I

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DECLARATION OF JOANNA FISCHER Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJEC

615 Second Ave., Ste. 40

Seattle, WA 9810

-3

206-957-861

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Document 60

F'i-l-e'td~-

S03E_/110) U/17i~.,Pa(_g~e~

1~ 1/oIf~

4

")
Y' 0

l\ G~J..C { J

J£ ~ n~ K.S(ii-J (Du tlv 1Y }!4 :r L
·~-~T c~rF7C( Ocx.'l{/00

G~LDf fl./ a{(.J R?) De gc4 G -~)_

/vl ·1. {( K~ 7 1-( E' /VI :F rli\ <(.; S

-v-
'Do:.~0 (rLJ) -T'f<u mP
~ T/4(
--------------------·--

Jv( 0 7.7 GrJ To .L\J Tc {?.. I)C v0 (_

(6 vile'> J'-'c.L~, HII-4\~..L

(s·zt.i /!-{[' j,i Il~if _

LvG.-L-:; ,lvf:1KK.:r 7t-/[;r-<":Z'11/f. (c,z,)

B~ t4 tu i) TH t(6u 6 H Hc1~ i·~1 ~LJ 0-114 Ct. tc /t-i (~rUT ( ~: 5rc_ ,:--' THLt.vJ 1 ,1-1 R,v tfGYtYlt;'\JT
V:l.t\.;0 r'~<9t-V1 K£t'(~ ~iJ TVt/.70.~ f4~~r2LC·1\t:·tJT) 'J05fft( l 11cJC.Jc ··' A vn F, (Sf"t'/

tvwcj(' ~==·r:lct: 6ctt< Ct'-rl/~TGJctGfvCJScev.:r.-ct:S; Jt~~ itLSc C1~
lu Lu W . \=A c.~ PxJ o1~ . Co /h / fft'J Ptrt t: ~~~ :;£ f: AL)c 1\~

&..:wc_-0. rr-iC£ fX.'iGI~-- Co.'t-7 /A-{1..) /)-(hlj(]Ctq ~~ Hc{)--r/1(}f..(L<J7~..Zk(r i <;rc ALSJ _,c

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -c-, :JDJo·~ 2uEr0r S'2.(<v1.ct:s t1uf~) sr:cvr<7~'1l LL__

A

--
CtcGj('tiDo

i.!::~e_~

>c(

AL9o

.TS'cvoViKL ['V[vl-f~ 1 ~OJc~ '?t<~~f·-_-,-t-0-T--)-)---{-/-t-\-,-0- yt{o S~ ·~cSt1 (C:T\"=UkY

RL'Qt)zsrs ru

+"t:.-Oft<\4-C '\(uL2

,/)
K 2

/~:...1.- IT

.,
r1 N 0

1:AJT[f''v·t-6J( .r_/J 7!-f-:t:) Crius~ 'ru,<-~J r+~-r ·TQ

0~ C::;u.rc ·?K.0 cr ougt' ;2Lf (ct) ()--~o ~ Cf(b) (\) (.BY

f {--'J Jr!-(

C \?-vt-l _-;--s 5--:r-G-,,J--.~~)--~----C-J---~-2- ? 'i vl)~ tJ ~ S;.--r H 7C5 .

-- i-

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4
e I·o\) " TH <;.. .A.A-r1v\ct: K ')~s S)E' ~) urH". r:0:..} r vc:· tl ,~ ~L\.- {) cc \}i.: Kt. 5
( Ln c CL\Tc· ( c· 1.: T'i. tit~':;, Cv =! 71{Cl.l1 Lr1 ~c utiGE r~

L() L] 70 \...;:.T0 T

\? K[ ~ 1() t.:' c.

I~~ H t-(, '\C.( "I c· r\J c I.- A;\j () F7:r!'v

~~ H'J 1H'l.' (2ou:_ c. ~ 1J i .r, ~'l2 -fi-u/(,.y-r u r\:.: /; i-f T rn

D ' ,)··- /Ji';: L C' q 4 f:t (. h'' 7~)<.". '(:·rrII'u,_._(_)'-c._

.~

_,LX_ . ,.I'V'' :.._.,. .,- , l1 Iv .,_,~...;'v

t_

Yil.A.V\.i.' . f ("·<-:.L~- • ,

1

rrt ·n~ 1\, :c-!v' G -;li L ,.:.1,.c 6 -~- ~~ Gt C' ·1r-ft; 1:' c.'-' .1 _.) 'L ,q VVJ t~ 7'6~ u o L ::>
r-J C /IJC L [ /L.: '(ffC UTL'l/;:_ c l'·:, u·,-:- G: ( J[ rS r-\ fc I( Sct"u : {{ t'

C{-l(.; .tn'l:\ v ;· liM I'\ '-

1~: (J

("-: lS·{v 1<'(-c~•

/e

{' L( (f g ?,c- Y· 7/.{Cc:·

L,.

4 "

A l v

</:: '

U ·

t1\rr·

c
L

Lt'F r 6<('H7-. o. ·' ( \3-.r A~~~c(s ['-:.t[{ .:r,c ?(,/ .::Z_~) S,

1
~ d---t-o~Y--..-//--~'-(·6--·.--t!·:-:z~s·t-·--o-1-J----I-2-8·~·(··i-J--Y-.~-i--c.-: -t~·-/--I-C-!--U-~·) .

~ L1C I\), ,-l,t,~·_! 'I'':,
1

1" -
1- \,))

-r j_

Trv~-L

1..--

~i~ 0 rt vl '> A ·12z6 fl <- '7o f<: .\,_._,'cjk~

Du~LU(}-

,~} i~{{'rl---lt}E,( c 1: 7/..IC fudL:rc
s {A~ if I·+ 7 0 \.--· 1<.' c;(; cl-1 (.·_:\) ;1(CA.J 7 -:[

3.) ~:-:;. ,ItA 7{( (1 7!/r:_' --<A -;r_.J)f, Si-{l,;,___·;: S /! r.. r--L -:I/V ('-· f11 11J c 'vi

--n--(

PL r t1 2/v 1I Ff5 ,rJ _!:, i3c) •/1/ /?I )-:_>;t, -r.=--~ ~ s ,:Ll., ;_) .A17/( /CZ -/1-( ~l7?Zl£.

AR£. () F' (Etu CdLL<t'l) Utl·\; 'Tc i?JE ;v(,J.) n:?(/t7CI) B\' J.6'tJ2(2/~v7

c ~/- ·lo(..._ v

iL'·
r.

Is.-..-

G_,. t~- c

' Ju.t,.) \IJ. <,.:.

.y '' i

'I)(~-. k) S'l '/\_;\

.'v\)

~. . .
I

7/f E ( ,t L r<' '~-.... ( 7~{r·_J-_r"'t-:- ':-'7

r Sf) L ~ ·- ( ·f~' !:1 (' C ~1rf~ t /~

lf,) NJ-J<'t<:::£ /f-It t iztl [ CuuL>) 8 leu" f c.- M S1)'' KFeJ \-"i' ::-c -\/0_')

L~--:t 7I(

C?L vi .1/1.} / _7· ~, F·'>

1L"' 1) f l. 11 -i)·r ') 1

-tf(f) -;

6

f

p0 rc? r"

.- .1-:.7.
1

7

y

T()

PoS)]r3c·( t:"r:T~-1'"'_) J};r-· ili.{U__._,7,,~.)( Flrf:_{,.i7:2Fr) tl''-'t.J '!ltc·--::rr'":

c r F,L;-C-1../v s Accr:.- s '> )o 'i!J u T5 --2:/1./ ":(--vu; (' 7 JC1 !' r::...:zr.. c -/tr

-::z if. R7 G:1/r

\-"1<'f <C s f(-"tt t{ 5i~l7 ~~ ~"t / ,~L..-u t)

r-:7 ·7fc '"; ../.{j?;. 711<['

(ct..-'\2 (, ll. :;) A il/~Tt11:E'/ tL:~ ?t{C lc.s I n' '7/-lL_ L•_, /.:;1 C/C---t~ r J)c;()

r\I (v_)j{ ~- ~J ~KJ j·'-~J(' :7\ l ('Do /v l.7,:i ~ )

.t...-,1fT 1 1V''(-

i27-~~f·(·-(:::, \l

{f ~E~C1(1 'TC 0 '8'(

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4
--l?t1S':> OJ(u(K -~ Yc5,r Bu·r ~=~_;\;Cf -n!E'y C' 4 tJ1' SrJcr1f< !l-Ie Y CtLv ( BE s vf2 -!fllf- T /lf! ;-· ~0c -0 T Gc_· 1t rt+v)t.u _f AJ /1

'Bt><::, -L0 DL·f: .7' "V"c 1( f, cJ /lv t~ 0LL ··rc 5/77 E(C -tf(t_· 1-{c:cJ( f ~ ~fCff-LS£'

((-(f. O;J [_ y F~Q5f s ;t Vtr)./l ~-'1-t)[C L~--zt. (_ ·p> ~ :Z rU rt a·;::· "L r-1 ~ '( c) !.JE'S

r· ('' c 0 F (-)~ 'uI(""t I \r:Jf.\-:, f(\t./VO -\-:")cc;· /~'lj .-·.£_,..7J ·-·r;-r'!_·fr.Lrl

1 IL' .../
•l'-t. I

- / fl f' 6 (J1 (/c.'~( () (( 0 u (._- I

•

1-'

Sf <l. rt.(r·~ 71 ._ c,c t: \)0~ 7 Gv .4_;J 7 "'~"C · f/i k c· -rt-f£' ( 1~ f ~-U\J t 6 (' CJ Ul2

c 'B $ L cU£ D

L-{

7v

r-1 // (_

T'"c c.AJ oCr2 d· f ~-lY fLu 1) f/ C~-

7 J~.d.1./5. f c f <c_ , J U~ 11

7 :rl v~L/( k {J I ."1c ,~ ul~u Cvt rc: ( v4 L -r/2 jll\,~ _..) \-e:SJc -J 6 c t i(' • C'f;J 7c..r (2 A'S -

-u
#"Dt

J--1

:2;\.J'\)

~

\(t

I ' ) ,."1.·/~

+l c£ vVC!!~ K 0 r !J7 n( /() tt Tu ()£

lf/l;vJ

CouRiiGC, F!~t.J11 'Pv77-z/JG- s·(h7LES ;1JO LAvG}-('C0(~ (1-L\Jo

'1)1~LLooi\J HA-YS) G<() lL0'2~<~·c,v( 1., [U<t'tJ \X;t1~ALO '1(2v rr1f CcVLO

u~~ ,~ ur1LLoc.rJ H\+T ( '1- !_(1,:~1 1'1!:_ J::.J V"1((' ~{C~ ((J '1ff€

tv i-r:r<E r-\ ous.'<. :Dc::uc 1)

-

5 \ /l!lz k'~:l' rl.f 2 1l1 7/Vl- ~ / 1-tt. r<( C3>1 0 oc_ () L <( M ~~ _M cz' 'J C-J i-l er2(
c vtro v1A 7/}t? 'L H~~ \ ./v{7,1·1 (!) B2:' Fe-(~~[- 71-t [' r::r 0 f tCA-
c I uzL Co :J (2 r Dc•c K2 -y·S .

6':) t=u LLLw \-\~ R c.~ T~..-u ---rrz: (:' f.) /vi 7 KK7 71-1£.M7/1/f! , -{i=MIK/CL111r117/1/t;;-

/.Lt, U w~v LV . ):"A Cf ~ _( c r'l / /vl 7 £!S~ -;f./ E ,117/llf~ fi-.rJ C)

r-1- (

- - (.,,) v~ w

. ~t( 7

IC \<

.:1

I(-(('

~tA
.

7

-Gt
.

c:t·

- (·

u ,

(~' ~l -' -

U-:T S 7T. f-l E (.?

Y ?R ~l-C--_-~--l-[-'-c--2·t-"--(----C..k- [

.
1

/~l

/
-

(

(

"t./..-.L,'

-r- I r{• K L-

/

1
v

zJ·-Z--H11L•~c·

I

1)__r_I_Q_r~·'\-. ( 'f?C Sf€c 7\=·c-L[

rJy..S,

1N J S Co~~ ,2. 7 G(( ,!JVVI L~A Ut" \="c(2· ~c ?( 70 Lv-r[ ~<?v(·,0 r;, -:.LJ

77--i ~- AGo \J £ C. .,j fl T -::rc ~0 r \) rJ·l tt -r 7.f 1.J ,

'?6' s ~~~ c_ T FCL LYr" ~· / ..... ··_·2../'2' :. -··:~ /.. _-
~:'
e-./· JoscvII

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 60 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4
--
--,.,..
-----..-=-::

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 67 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 3

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE
8

9 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI, et al.,

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

PRAECIPE

12 Donald TRUMP, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
16
The previously filed declaration of Mozhdeh Oskouian in support of Plaintiffs, Dkt. 56,
17
was filed on March 10, 2017, with an electronic signature. Please replace the previously filed
18
declaration with the corrected declaration containing an original signature attached hereto.
19
DATED this 13th day of March, 2017.
20

21
Respectfully submitted,
22

23
s/Matt Adams 24 Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287

s/ Mary Kenney Mary Kenney, pro hac vice

25 s/Glenda Aldana 26 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No.
46987 27 s/Maria Lucia Chavez
28 Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

s/ Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac vice
s/Melissa Crow Melissa Crow, pro hac vice

PRAECIPE Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

- 1

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 67 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 3

1 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 2 Seattle, WA 98104

1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005

3 (206) 957-8611 (206) 587-4025 (fax)

(202) 507-7512 (202) 742-5619 (fax)

4

s/ Trina Realmuto 5 Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice

6
s/ Kristin Macleod-Ball
7 Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice

8

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT

9 OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602

10 Boston, MA 02108

(617) 227-9727 11 (617) 227-5495 (fax)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAECIPE Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

- 2

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 67 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 3

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I, Glenda Aldana Madrid, hereby certify that on March 13, 2017, I electronically filed the

3
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of
4
such filing to the attorneys of record for all Defendants.
5

6 Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 13, 2017.

7
8 s/ Glenda Aldana Madrid Glenda Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAECIPE Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

- 3

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 67-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 67-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 67-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 11

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9 Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor;

10 Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh

DECLARATION OF KRISTIN

11 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma

MACLEOD-BALL IN SUPPORT OF

Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION

12 minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

13 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14

Plaintiffs,

v.
15

16 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
17 General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
18 TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 19 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of 20 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori 21 SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 22 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting 23 Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 24 INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, 25 Acting Director of National Intelligence,

26

Defendants.

27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’ TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 11

1

2 I, Kristin Macleod-Ball, declare as follows:
3

4

1) I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this case. I submit this declaration in support

5 of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary

6 Injunction.

7

2) I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness, I

8 could and would testify completely as set forth below.

9

3) Where the following exhibits include portions of online comment sections, I have

10 redacted obscenities appearing in the comment sections.

11

4) Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a printout from the

12 www.donaldjtrump.com website, entitled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim

13 Immigration,” December 7, 2015. I accessed the statement on March 13, 2017 at

14 https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-
15 immigration.
16
5) Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a tweet of Defendant Donald J.
17
Trump (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, December 10, 2015. I accessed the tweet on
18
March 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/674934005725331456.
19
6) Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an article from Politico by Nick
20
Gass entitled “Trump Not Bothered by Comparisons to Hitler,” December 8, 2015. I accessed
21
the article on March 13, 2017 at http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-
22
comparison.
23
7) Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an article from CNN by
24
Theodore Schleifer, entitled “Donald Trump: ‘I think Islam hates us,’” March 10, 2016. I
25
26 accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-
27 trump-islam-hates-us/.

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 11

1
8) Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a tweet of Defendant Donald J.
2
Trump (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, March 22, 2016. I accessed the tweet on
3
March 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/712473816614772736.
4
9) Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a
5
June 13, 2016 speech of Defendant Donald Trump, entitled “Donald J. Trump Addresses
6
Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security.” I accessed the transcript on March 13, 2017 at
7
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-
8

9 and-national-security.

10

10) Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a tweet of Defendant Donald J.

11 Trump (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, July 25, 2016. I accessed the tweet on

12 March 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758872422028148740.

13

11) Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a printout of a page from the

14 Terrorism Awareness Project website from February 3, 2007, as archived on www.archive.org. I

15 accessed the page on March 13, 2017 at

16 https://web.archive.org/web/20070203001212/http://www.terrorismawareness.org/about/3/about-

17 the-project?pg=2.

18

12) Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of an article from CNN by Andrew

19 Kaczynski and Chris Massie, entitled “In College, Trump Aide Stephen Miller Led Controversial

20 ‘Terrorism Awareness Project’ Warning of ‘Islamofascism,’” February 15, 2017. I accessed the

21 article on March 13, 2017 at available at http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/kfile-stephen-
22 miller-terrorism-awareness.
23
13) Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of an article from CNN by Andrew
24
Kaczynski, entitled “Steve Bannon in 2010: ‘Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion
25
of submission,’” January 31, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
26
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/kfile-bannon-on-islam/.
27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 4 of 11

1
14) Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of an article from the New York
2
Times by Scott Shane, entitled “Stephen Bannon in 2014: We Are at War with Radical Islam,”
3
February 1, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
4
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen-bannon-war-with-radical-
5
islam.html.
6
15) Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of an article from Newsweek by
7
Reuters, entitled “Bannon Driving Force Behind Trump’s Hardline Immigration Ban, Officials
8
9 Say,” January 30, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
10 http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve-bannon-immigration-ban-immigration-muslim-
11 550415.

12

16) Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of an article from CNN by Dan

13 Merica, entitled “Trump Signs Executive Order to Keep Out ‘Radical Islamic Terrorists,’”

14 January 30, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at

15 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-

16 extreme-vetting/.

17

17) Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of an article from CBN News by

18 David Brody, entitled “Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will

19 Be Given Priority As Refugees,” January 27, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at

20 http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-

21 says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees.

22

18) Attached as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of an article from the New York

23
Times by Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper, entitled “Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of

24
7 Muslim Countries,” January 27, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
25
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html.
26

27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 5 of 11

1
19) Attached as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of a tweet of Defendant Donald J.
2
Trump (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, January 29, 2017. I accessed the tweet on
3
March 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858.
4
20) Attached as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of an article from the Washington
5
Post by Amy B. Wang, entitled “Trump Asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani Says—And Ordered
6
a Commission to Do It ‘legally,’” January 29, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
7
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-
8

9 giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.2cd663c28df1.

10

21) Attached as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of an article from CBS News by

11 Rebecca Shabad, entitled “Donald Trump Says He’s Expanding His Muslim Ban,” July 25,

12 2016. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-

13 says-hes-expanding-muslim-ban.

14

22) Attached as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of an article from Reuters by Mica

15 Rosenberg and Lesley Wroughton, entitled “Trump’s Travel Ban Has Revoked 60,000 Visas for

16 Now,” February 3, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at

17 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN15I2EW.

18

23) Attached as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of a tweet of Defendant Donald J.

19 Trump (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, February 6, 2017. I accessed the tweet on

20 March 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/828797801630937089.

21

24) Attached as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of an article from the Associated

22 Press by Vivian Salama and Alicia A. Caldwell, entitled “AP Exclusive: DHS Report Disputes

23
Threat from Banned Nations,” February 24, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at

24
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866/dhs-intel-report-disputes-
25
threat-posed-travel-ban-nations.
26
25) Attached as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a
27
February 16, 2017 news conference of Defendant Donald Trump. I accessed the transcript on
28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 6 of 11

1
March 13, 2017 at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-
2
conference-transcript.html.
3
26) Attached as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of an article from Bloomberg by
4
Jennifer Jacobs, entitled “Trump Delaying Revamped Immigration Order until Next Week,
5
Official Says,” February 22, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
6
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-22/trump-said-to-delay-revamped-
7
immigration-order-until-next-week.
8

9

27) Attached as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a

10 February 18, 2017 speech by Defendant, entitled “Remarks at Rally in Melbourne, Florida.” I

11 accessed the transcript on March 13, 2017 at

12 http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-

13 florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/.

14

28) Attached as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a

15 February 23, 2017 White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer. I accessed the

16 transcript on March 13, 2017 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/23/press-

17 briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2232017-15.

18

29) Attached as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a

19 February 21, 2017 White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer. I accessed the

20 transcript on March 13, 2017 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/21/press-

21 briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2212017-13.

22

30) Attached as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a

23
February 22, 2017 White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer. I accessed the

24
transcript on March 13, 2017 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-
25
briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14.
26
31) Attached as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of a printout of a “rush transcript”
27
of a February 21, 2017 Fox News television broadcast, entitled “The First 100 Days.” I accessed
28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 7 of 11

1
the transcript on March 10, 2017 at http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-
2
order-will-be-responsive-tojudicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.
3
32) Attached as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of a
4
March 6, 2017 White House Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Sean Spicer. I accessed the
5
transcript on March 13, 2017 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-
6
gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer.
7
33) Attached as Exhibit DD is a true and correct copy of a tweet of Donald Trump
8
9 (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, January 30, 2017. I accessed the tweet on March
10 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051.

11

34) Attached as Exhibit EE is a true and correct copy of an article from ABC NEWS by

12 Riley Beggin, entitled “Protesters Caused ‘Only Disruption’ Surrounding Immigration Order:

13 White House Advisor,” February 2, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at

14 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-caused-disruption-surrounding-immigration-order-

15 white-house/story?id=45233560.

16

35) Attached as Exhibit FF is a true and correct copy of a tweet by Donald Trump

17 (@realDonaldTrump), published on Twitter, February 4, 2017. I accessed the tweet on March

18 13, 2017 at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827996357252243456.

19

36) Attached as Exhibit GG is a true and correct copy of an article from the BOSTON

20 GLOBE by Matt Zapotosky, “John Kelly testifies travel ban should have been delayed,” February

21 7, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
22 https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/02/07/john-kelly-testifies-there-are-plans-add-
23
nations-travel-ban/vArt8PFWA8TYWdRtgjTeUN/story.html.
24
37) Attached as Exhibit HH is a true and correct copy of any article from the GUARDIAN
25
by Julia Carrie Wong, entitled “Trump to sign new immigration policy after multiple court
26
defeats of travel ban,” February 16, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 8 of 11

1
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/trump-travel-ban-replacement-us-
2
immigration.
3
38) Attached as Exhibit II is a true and correct copy of an article from CNN by Laura
4
Jarrett et al., entitled “Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech,” March 1, 2017.
5
I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-
6
travel-ban-visa-holders/.
7
39) Attached as Exhibit JJ is a true and correct copy of an article from THE OREGONIAN
8
9 by Lynne Terry, entitled “Family of Portland’s bomb suspect, Mohamed Mohamud, fled chaos in
10 Somalia for new life in America,” December 4, 2010. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017

11 at http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/12/suspect_in_portland_bomb_plot.html.

12

40) Attached as Exhibit KK is a true and correct copy of a printout from the Department

13 of Homeland Security website, entitled “Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist

14 Entry Into The United States,” March 6, 2017. I accessed the Q&A on March 13, 2017 ay

15 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states.

16

41) Attached as Exhibit LL is a true and correct copy of an article posted on

17 YAHOO.COM, entitled “Iran keeps ban on US visitors in response to Trump order,” March 7,

18 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-keeps-ban-

19 us-visitors-response-trump-order-104300662.html.

20

42) Attached as Exhibit MM is a true and correct copy of an article from WIRED by Issie

21 Lapowsky, entitled “Online Petition to Ban Trump Is Now the UK’s Most Popular,” December
22 10, 2015. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at https://www.wired.com/2015/12/online-
23
petition-to-ban-trump-is-now-the-uks-most-popular/.
24
43) Attached as Exhibit NN is a true and correct copy of the Joint Declaration of
25
Madeleine K. Albright, et al., submitted in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. 2017),
26
ECF 28-2. I accessed the PACER docket containing this entry on March 13, 2017.
27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 9 of 11

1
44) Attached as Exhibit OO is a true and correct copy of an article from the Times by
2
Jeffrey Gettleman, entitled “State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures,”
3
January 31, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at
4
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-dept-dissent-cable-trump-
5
immigration-order.html.
6
45) Attached as Exhibit PP is a true and correct copy of a report by the Department of
7
Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, entitled “Most Foreign-born, US-based
8
9 Violent Extremists Radicalized after Entering Homeland,” March 1, 2017. I accessed the report
10 on March 13, 2017 at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trms-exclusive-dhs-
11 document-undermines-trump-case-travel-ban.

12

46) Attached as Exhibit QQ is a true and correct copy of an article from CATO Institute

13 by Alex Nowrasteh, entitled “Little National Security Benefit to Trump’s Executive order on

14 Immigration,” January 25, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at

15 https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration.

16

47) Attached as Exhibit RR is a true and correct copy of an article from CNN by Kelly

17 Daniella Diaz, entitled “There are '13 or 14' more countries with questionable vetting

18 procedures,” March 7, 2017. I accessed the article on March 13, 2017 at 19 http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-travel-ban-muslim-countries/.
20

21

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

22 true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

23
Executed in Boston, MA on the 13th day of March, 2017.

24
By:
25
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball
26

27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 10 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’ TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Kristin Macleod-Ball National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

9

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68 Filed 03/13/17 Page 11 of 11

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on March 13, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3
of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the

4
attorneys of record for all Defendants.

5
Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 13, 2017.
6

s/Glenda Aldana 7 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987
8 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
9 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 957-8646 10 (206) 587-4025 (fax)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MACLEOD-BALL DECL. ISO PLS.’

TRO AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 205
EXHIBIT A

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cDvon-a0ld0J1. T3ru5m-pJSLtaRtemeDntooncPurmeveentnintg 6M8us-li1m ImFmiligeradtio0n3| D/1on3al/d1J7TrumPpafogrePre2sidoefnt205

INSTAGRAM

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

NEWS

GET INVOLVED

ABOUT US

TN RALLY

SHOP

CONTRIBUTE

- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can ꐕgure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justiꐕed as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

C AT E G O R I E S
VIEW ALL STATEMENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS ENDORSEMENTS ADS
ARCHIVE
NOVEMBER 2016 OCTOBER 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016 AUGUST 2016 JULY 2016

JUNE 2016

Next Release: Donald J. Trump Announces State Directors in Massachusetts and Mississippi
Previous Release: Donald J. Trump Announces Statewide Leadership Team in Oklahoma

MAY 2016 APRIL 2016 MARCH 2016

FEBRUARY 2016

JANUARY 2016

DECEMBER 2015

NOVEMBER 2015

OCTOBER 2015

SEPTEMBER 2015

AUGUST 2015

JULY 2015

JUNE 2015

EXH. A TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

MAY 2015

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

APRIL 2015 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

MARCH 2015

206-957-8611

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

1/2

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cDvon-a0ld0J1. T3ru5m-pJSLtaRtemeDntooncPurmeveentnintg 6M8us-li1m ImFmiligeradtio0n3| D/1on3al/d1J7TrumPpafogrePre3sidoefnt205

Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Contact The Campaign - Privacy Policy - Tel: 646-736-1779 *By entering your mobile number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Message and data rates may apply. Text "STOP" to opt-out. T&C/Privacy Policy: sms-terms/88022

EXH. A TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

2/2

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 4 of 205
EXHIBIT B

3/13/2017 Donald J. TruCmap soneTw2i:tt1er7: "-Tchve -U0ni0te1d 3Ki5ng-dJoLmRis tryDingohcarudmto deisngtuis6e8th-e1ir maFsislievedM0us3li/m1p3ro/1ble7m. EPvearygbeody5isowfis2e 0to5what is happening, very…

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

The United Kingdom is trying hard to disguise their massive Muslim problem. Everybody is wise to what is happening, very sad! Be honest.

RETWEETS
5,998

LIKES
9,783

4:49 AM - 10 Dec 2015

[ 3.3K \ 6.0K

9.8K

Donald J. Trump K$

© 2017 Twitter

@realDonaldTrump♫@rAesatlDroonnoamldyTyruK$m@ p saAhsbturootuntthoTemHeyeylp·C1eu0npDteer c 2015

~

45th President of the United

Privac cy

States of America [

\ 7 Cookies 5A2ds info

 Joined March 2009

Greg Diamond K$ @thegregdiamond · 10 Dec 2015

~

.@realDonaldTrump you're seriously

insane

[1

\5

56

1 more reply

Just Geo. K$ @JustGeoUK · 11 Dec 2015

~

@realDonaldTrump You're a racist deluded idiotic old man, but cheers for letting

the world know what a bigot you are before gettin any power

[2

\1

7

1 more reply

The Trashman @TradTrash · 10 Dec 2015

~

@mak_morn @realDonaldTrump No, they fought to keep their way of life and

their great engineering alive.

EXH. B TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/674934005725331456

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

1/1

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 6 of 205
EXHIBIT C

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLTRrumpDnoot bcouthemreed nbytc6om8p-a1risonFsitloeHditle0r3- /P1O3LI/T1IC7O Page 7 of 205



Donald Trump went on a series of rhetorical rants on Tuesday morning, saying he does not mind comparisons to Adolf Hitler and tussling with morning show anchors about his proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the United States, calling his approach more akin to what Hitler's American contemporary did during World War II.
“You’re increasingly being compared to Hitler. Doesn’t that give you any pause at all?” ABC News' George Stephanopoulos asked the Republican poll leader on "Good Morning

EXH. C TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLTRrumpDnoot bcouthemreed nbytc6om8p-a1risonFsitloeHditle0r3- /P1O3LI/T1IC7O Page 8 of 205

America," displaying an image of the Philadelphia Daily News' punning Tuesday front-page headline "The New Furor."
In response, Trump said no, invoking what he termed President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "solution for Germans, Italians, Japanese many years ago" during World War II. “This was a president that was highly respected by all," Trump said, remarking upon the Democratic president's actions during the war. "If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse."
Pressed whether he would then advocate the establishment of internment camps for Muslims, for example, Trump forcefully denied that notion. “No, I’m not. No, I’m not. No, I’m not," he said, remarking that European cities like Paris and London no longer look like they once did.
"I hope it will go quickly. I hope we can figure it out," Trump said. "We will have many, many more World Trade Centers as sure as you're sitting there, our country will never be the same."

Trump, no stranger to dropping rhetorical bombs since he announced his presidential run in June, still managed to stun with his proposal emailed late Monday with the simple title: "Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration."
In it, Trump used research from the Center for Security Policy, which has been called an extremist group, to back his claim that an alarming number of Muslims want to unleash violence in the United States. "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said in his statement, which many in the media believed might have been a hoax when it landed. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."
The proposal came less than a week after a married Muslim couple killed 14 people and wounded 21 in a shooting attack that is apparently the most deadly terrorist act on U.S. soil since 9/11. Trump's statement, which he promoted at a Pearl Harbor Day rally in South Carolina on Monday night, played into Americans' fears stoked by the attack and also gave

EXH. C TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLTRrumpDnoot bcouthemreed nbytc6om8p-a1risonFsitloeHditle0r3- /P1O3LI/T1IC7O Page 9 of 205

Trump a chance to draw attention back to him after a poll released earlier in the day showed Ted Cruz zooming past him in Iowa.
Many of his rivals quickly condemned the comments, with Jeb Bush calling Trump "unhinged," Chris Christie calling it “a ridiculous view,” and Marco Rubio saying, "His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together."
But the outcry only further threw attention Trump's way, and the billionaire businessman did not let up on Tuesday morning.
He continued trying to justify his proposal in interviews on CNN's "New Day" and MSNBC's "Morning Joe," the latter of which suspended its interview with Trump only minutes into the segment after co-host Joe Scarborough complained that the candidate was not allowing him to ask any questions. The show returned with a full panel of questions, and the entire segment ran more than a half-hour.

During his questioning on MSNBC, Trump was grilled on what the customs process would look like for a Muslim non-citizen attempting to enter the U.S.
“That would be probably — they would say, are you Muslim?" Trump told contributor Willie Geist.
“And if they said yes, they would not be allowed in the country," Geist volunteered. “That’s correct," Trump responded.
In the same interview, Trump also claimed that the Muslim community is not doing enough to self-report suspicious activity in light of last Wednesday's attack in California. Asked by co-host Mika Brzezinski whether he would want to engage the Muslim community, the Manhattan mogul said he would not, "but the Muslim community has to help us, Mika. They’re not helping us."
"The Muslim community is not reporting what’s going on. They should be reporting that their next-door neighbor is making pipe bombs and they’ve got them all over the place. The mother’s in the apartment, other people, his friend was buying him rifles. Nobody was reporting that," he said of the San Bernardino case. "The Muslim community has to help us, because without the Muslim community, we would have to get very tough and much

EXH. C TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLTRrumpDnootcbouthmereednbty 6co8m-p1arisoFnsilteodHit0le3r -/1PO3L/I1TI7CO Page 10 of 205

tougher, and I don’t want to do that. But the Muslim community is not a one-way street. The Muslim community knew that this guy, what he was doing, and his wife, his very heavily radicalized wife, they knew what they were doing was wrong. Nobody called the police. Nobody said this is what happened.”
At the start of the interview on ABC, Trump forcefully defended his statement, citing "tremendous support" and the "thousands and thousands of people you saw last night" at his rally in South Carolina. "We were on a ship. There were thousands of people there, there were thousands of people outside that couldn’t get in. And frankly, it was a standing ovation that wouldn’t stop," he remarked.
"I mean, people went and interviewed the people that were at my speech last night, and they just want to see something happening. We had the World Trade Center, we had the pre-World Trade Center," he said, referring to both the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that destroyed the twin towers as well as the Feb. 26, 1993, bombing.
"You know, remember, a lot of people forget now — they tried to blow it up twice. We had so many other incidents, and we had now the last incident in California. Now it turns out that $28,000 was deposited in this punk’s savings account probably given by some people that we are fighting," he speculated, following reports Monday that more than $28,000 had been deposited into the account of San Bernardino co-attacker Syed Rizwan Farook. "Something has to be done," he added.

Trump, who on MSNBC declared himself to be more specific than any other candidate in the race, had a parting message for Muslims: “We love you, we want to work with you, we want you to turn in the bad ones, we want you to practice vigilance, we know that if you know a lot, in many cases, we want you to turn in the bad ones. We all want to get along. We want to get back to a normal, peaceful life."

On how he would get it done, Trump, offered no specifics other than to again lambaste President Barack Obama's Sunday night speech on defeating ISIL and to repeat his Monday statement.

“What I’m doing is I’m calling very simply for a shutdown of Muslims entering the United States — and here’s a key — until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. They don’t know. Our president, I watched him make a fool of himself the other night

EXH. C TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

4/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLTRrumpDnootcbouthmereednbty 6co8m-p1arisoFnsilteodHit0le3r -/1PO3L/I1TI7CO Page 11 of 205

with a speech that nobody still knows — I tweeted out, is that all there is? He didn’t say anything. He doesn’t know what’s going on. And we have people in this country that want to blow up our country. You know it, and so do I," he said on "Good Morning America."
"The polls have come out, and various polls that I’ve quoted, with 25 percent of those polls agreed the violence against the Americans in the United States is justified. And they’re looking at the jihad. They want a global jihad. George, we can't take it sitting back. You will have many more World Trade Centers. It will only get worse," Trump warned. "You look at Paris, you know, and I’m not talking about the horrible carnage that took place. Paris is no longer the same city."
American Muslim citizens would be able to come back to the U.S., Trump said, adding, "but we have to figure things out."
Many legal scholars came out against the proposal, saying such a religious test would violate the U.S. Constitution. And the spectrum of blowback stretched wide and far. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, "Well I think this whole notion that somehow we need to say no more Muslims and just ban a whole religion goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean religious freedom’s been a very important part of our, our history.”
Huma Abedin, the vice chairwoman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, sent an email to supporters saying, "I’m a proud Muslim — but you don’t have to share my faith” to know “my disgust."
After Obama aides spoke out on Monday evening, White House communications director Jen Psaki said at a POLITICO Playbook breakfast on Tuesday morning that Trump is not the only Republican making irresponsible comments, but she said the real estate mogul's statement are especially dangerous.
"So the reason it’s dangerous ... is that this is kind of sending a message that the American people, that our values are different from what they once were. Sending the message that we want to be in competition or we want to be, you know, thwarting the Muslim community instead of working with the Muslim community as a partner," Psaki said.
On the Republican side, Sen. Lindsey Graham re-upped his criticism, speaking on both CNN and MSNBC on Tuesday morning to call out his presidential rival. “He is a wrecking ball for the Republican Party. He is a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, and I think that’s who they’re supporting. Time will tell how long this goes."

EXH. C TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

5/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLTRrumpDnootcbouthmereednbty 6co8m-p1arisoFnsilteodHit0le3r -/1PO3L/I1TI7CO Page 12 of 205

The heads of state Republican parties in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also expressed public disapproval of Trump's proposal. "There are some issues that transcend politics. While my position [as party chairwoman] is certainly political, I am an American first," said New Hampshire GOP Chairwoman Jennifer Horn, who has been a Trump critic, according to WMUR. "There should never be a day in the United States of America when people are excluded based solely on their race or religion. It is un-Republican. It is unconstitutional. And it is un-American."
In response, Trump told Stephanopoulos, "Well, first of all, George, she’s a Bush person. And she wants to see Bush, and Bush has crashed like nobody else has ever seen anyone crash before."
The United Nations' refugee settlement agency said Tuesday that campaign rhetoric from the United States is doing real harm.
"What the candidate you are speaking of was speaking of was an entire population, but this also impacts the refugee program," Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, told reporters in Geneva, according to Reuters. "Because our refugee program is religion-blind. Our resettlement program selects the people who are the most in need."

EXH. C TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

6/6

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 13 of 205
EXHIBIT D

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLDRonalDd Torucmupm: 'Iethninkt I6sl8am-1hatesFuisle' -dCN0N3P/o1li3tic/s1.c7om Page 14 of 205

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us'
By Theodore Schleifer, CNN @ Updated 5:56 PM ET, Thu March 10, 2016

Story highlights
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly deﬁned the religion
Asked if the hated was "in Islam itself," Trump would only say that was for the media to ﬁgure out

Washington (CNN) — Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly deﬁned the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to deﬁne. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who."

Ȩ

Donald Trump CNN interview (part 1) 10:15

READ: Donald Trump: 'It's over' if I win Ohio and Florida

Asked if the hate was "in Islam itself," Trump would only say that was for the media to ﬁgure out.

"You're gonna have to ﬁgure that out, OK?" he told Cooper. "We have to be very vigilant. We have to be very

careful. And we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States."

EXH. D TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLDRonalDd Torucmupm: 'Iethninkt I6sl8am-1hatesFuisle' -dCN0N3P/o1li3tic/s1.c7om Page 15 of 205

Donald Trump CNN interview (part 2) 10:59
Trump made headlines in December when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S., "until our country's representatives can ﬁgure out what is going on." Despite widespread condemnation of the remarks, Trump has stood by the proposal.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" Thursday, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said the real-estate magnate stood by the sentiment that many Muslims worldwide sympathize with ISIS, but said Trump should've used "radical Islam."
"It is radical Islamic extremists that do participate in these types of things," Pierson said, calling for a "broader perspective" of Muslims' ties to terror. "We've allowed this propaganda to spread all through the country that this is a religion of peace."
In speaking with Cooper, Trump added that "there can be no doctrine" when asked to outline how he would project power overseas.
Trump also tried to clarify his position on how far he would go in targeting the families of terrorists. He has said in the past that he is in favor of "expanding the laws" that govern how the U.S. can combat and deter terrorism, and Trump has called to bring back waterboarding, even vowing the U.S. "should go a lot further than waterboarding." Ȩ

EXH. D TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLDRonalDd Torucmupm: 'Iethninkt I6sl8am-1hatesFuisle' -dCN0N3P/o1li3tic/s1.c7om Page 16 of 205

Donald Trump talks about working with Democrats 00:51
READ: Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban But Trump on Wednesday declined to say what speciﬁc measures he would support. "I'll work on it with the generals," he told Cooper. He added, "We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we're playing it now."

Ȩ
Kate McKinnon center stage on 'SNL'
'SNL' is right: Ivanka is complicit

EXH. D GTOleMnAnCLGErOeDe-BnAwLLaDldE:CC. IA and FBI probably i3ntervened inNeOleRcTHtiWoEnST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/5

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 17 of 205
EXHIBIT E

3/13/2017 Donald J. TrCumapsoen T2w:i1tte7r:-"cInvco-m00pe1te3nt5H-ilJlaLryR, despDiteothceuhmorreiblnetat6tac8k-i1n BruFssileelsdtod0a3y,/w1a3nt/s1b7orderPs atogbeew1ea8k aondf o2p0en5-and let the Muslims fl…

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak and open-and let the Muslims flow in. No way!

RETWEETS
13,173

LIKES
36,158

7:59 PM - 22 Mar 2016

[ 4.2K \ 13K

36K

Donald J. Tru©m20p17 TK$witter
@realDonaldTrump
45th President of the United States of America

About H©el2p0C1e7nTtweritteTrerms About Help Center Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info

Privacy policy

Cookies

Ads info

 Joined March 2009

EXH. E TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/712473816614772736

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 19 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo0r Porefs2id0en5t

INSTAGRAM

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

NEWS

GET INVOLVED

ABOUT US

RALLIES

SHOP

CONTRIBUTE

- JUNE 13, 2016 -
DONALD J. TRUMP ADDRESSES TERRORISM IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Thank you for joining me today.
This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in these times of Radical Islamic Terrorism, she would be.
Even her former Secret Service Agent, who has seen her under pressure and in times of stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be president.

C AT E G O R I E S
VIEW ALL STATEMENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS ENDORSEMENTS ADS

There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that speech soon.
But today there is only one thing to discuss: the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders.

ARCHIVE
NOVEMBER 2016

The attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was the worst terrorist strike on our soil since September 11th, and the worst mass shooting in our country’s history.
So many people dead, so many people gravely injured, so much carnage, such a disgrace.

OCTOBER 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016 AUGUST 2016

The horror is beyond description.
The families of these wonderful people are totally devastated. Likewise, our whole nation, and indeed the whole world, is devastated.
We express our deepest sympathies to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
We mourn, as one people, for our nation’s loss – and pledge our support to any and all who need it.
I would like to ask now that we all observe a moment of silence for the victims of the attack.

JULY 2016 JUNE 2016 MAY 2016 APRIL 2016 MARCH 2016 FEBRUARY 2016 JANUARY 2016

[SILENCE]

DECEMBER 2015

Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America’s history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.

NOVEMBER 2015 OCTOBER 2015 SEPTEMBER 2015 AUGUST 2015 JULY 2015

It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.

JUNE 2015

It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and

MAY 2015

express their identity.

APRIL 2015

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

MARCH 2015 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

1/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo1r Porefs2id0en5t
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.

We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose and determination.

But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and think and act clearly.

If we don't get tough, and we don't get smart – and fast – we're not going to have a country anymore -- there will be nothing left.

The killer, whose name I will not use, or ever say, was born to Afghan parents who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was running for President of that country.

The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the rst place was because we allowed his family to come here.

That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.

We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.

We have an incompetent administration, and if I am not elected President, that will not change over the next four years -- but it must change, and it must change now.

With fty people dead, and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to talk around the issue anymore -- we have to address it head on.

I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger but now, many are saying I was right to do so -- and although the pause is temporary, we must nd out what is going on. The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.

The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate.

I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.

After a full, impartial and long overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.

We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer.

Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.

Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.

I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by Radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.

It’s not just a national security issue. It is a quality of life issue.

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

2/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo2r Porefs2id0en5t
If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about Radical Islam.

We need to tell the truth, also, about how Radical Islam is coming to our shores.

We are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system -- and through an intelligence community held back by our president.

Even our own FBI Director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of the people we are letting into America.

All of the September 11th hijackers were issued visas.

Large numbers of Somali refugees in Minnesota have tried to join ISIS.

The Boston Bombers came here through political asylum.

The male shooter in San Bernardino – again, whose name I won't mention -- was the child of immigrants from Pakistan, and he brought his wife – the other terrorist - from Saudi Arabia, through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.

Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly ve-fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.

We admit many more from other countries in the region who share these same oppressive views.

If we want to remain a free and open society, then we have to control our borders.

Yet, Hillary Clinton – for months and despite so many attacks – repeatedly refused to even say the words “radical Islam,” until I challenged her yesterday to say the words or leave the race.

However, Hillary Clinton – who has been forced to say the words today after policies she supports have caused us so much damage – still has no clue what Radical Islam is, and won’t speak honestly about what it is.

She is in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the world.

In fact, just a few weeks before the San Bernardino slaughter, Hillary Clinton explained her refusal to say the words Radical Islam. Here is what she said: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Hillary Clinton says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France, which has among the toughest gun laws in the world, and 130 were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in cold blood. Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolishing the 2nd amendment, and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. She wants to take away Americans’ guns, then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.

I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a Presidential race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror.

The bottom line is that Hillary supports the policies that bring the threat of Radical Islam into America, and allow it to grow overseas.

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

3/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo3r Porefs2id0en5t
In fact, Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more Radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our security but our way of life.

When it comes to Radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss – it's deadly.

The Obama Administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also damaged our security by restraining our intelligence-gathering and failing to support law enforcement. They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else.

I refuse to be politically correct.

I will do the right thing--I want to straighten things out and to Make America Great Again.

The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon.

As President I will give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks.

We need an intelligence-gathering system second to none. That includes better cooperation between state, local and federal ofcials – and with our allies.

I will have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Secretary of Defense who will know how to ght the war on Radical Islamic Terrorism – and who will have the support they require to get the job done.

We also must ensure the American people are provided the information they need to understand the threat.

The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration has already identied hundreds of immigrants charged with terrorist activities inside the United States since September 11th.

Nearly a year ago, the Senate Subcommittee asked President Obama's Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security to provide the immigration history of all terrorists inside the United States.

These Departments refused to comply.

President Obama must release the full and complete immigration histories of all individuals implicated in terrorist activity of any kind since 9/11.

The public has a right to know how these people got here.

We have to screen applicants to know whether they are afliated with, or support, radical groups and beliefs.

We have to control the amount of future immigration into this country to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America.

Even a single individual can be devastating, just look at what happened in Orlando. Can you imagine large groups?

Truly, our President doesn't know what he is doing. He has failed us, and failed us badly, and under his leadership, this situation will not get any better -- it will only get worse.

Each year, the United States permanently admits more than 100,000 immigrants

from the Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside the Middle East.

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

4/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo4r Porefs2id0en5t
Our government has been admitting ever-growing numbers, year after year, without any effective plan for our security.

In fact, Clinton's State Department was in charge of the admissions process for people applying to enter from overseas.

Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans to massively increase admissions without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.

This could be a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.

We can't let this happen.

Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you'd be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children.

The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are bringing in.

The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans.

The burden is also on Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it. Her plan will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars long-term.

Wouldn't this money be better spent on rebuilding America for our current population, including the many poor people already living here?

We have to stop the tremendous ၵow of Syrian refugees into the United States – we don't know who they are, they have no documentation, and we don't know what they're planning.

What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes American values.

That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy designed to benet America, or Hillary Clinton's radical immigration policy designed to benet politically-correct special interests.

We've got to get smart, and tough, and vigilant, and we've got to do it now, because later is too late.

Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? Clinton wants to allow Radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.

I don’t want them in our country.

The terrorist attack on the Pulse Night Club demands a full and complete investigation into every aspect of the assault.

In San Bernardino, as an example, people knew what was going on, but they used the excuse of racial proling for not reporting it.

We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and associates.

We need to know if he was afliated with any radical Mosques or radical activists and

EXH. FwThOat,Mif AanCyL, EisOthDe-iBr iAmLmL iDgrEaCtio. n status. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

5/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo5r Porefs2id0en5t

We need to know if he travelled anywhere, and who he travelled with.

We need to make sure every single last person involved in this plan – including anyone who knew something but didn't tell us – is brought to justice.

If it can be proven that somebody had information about any attack, and did not give this information to authorities, they must serve prison time .

America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.

It also means we must change our foreign policy.

The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.

These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.

That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism, not nation-building.

For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.

I've said NATO needs to change its focus to stopping terrorism. Since I've raised that criticism, NATO has since announced a new initiative focused on just that.

America must unite the whole civilized world in the ght against Islamic terrorism, just like we did against communism in the Cold War.

We've tried it President Obama's way. He gave the world his apology tour, we got ISIS, and many other problems, in return.

I'd like to conclude my remarks today by again expressing our solidarity with the people of Orlando who have come under attack.

When I am President, I pledge to protect and defend all Americans who live inside of our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were born, all Americans living here and following our laws will be protected.

America will be a tolerant and open society.

America will also be a safe society.

We will protect our borders at home.

We will defeat ISIS overseas.

We will ensure every parent can raise their children in peace and safety.

We will make America rich again.

We will make America safe again.

We will make American Great Again.

Thank you.

The media talks about “homegrown,” terrorism, but Islamic radicalism, and the networks that nurture it, are imports from overseas.

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

6/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo6r Porefs2id0en5t
Yes, there are many radicalized people already inside our country as a result of the poor policies of the past. But the whole point is that it will be much, much easier to deal with our current problem if we don’t keep on bringing in people who add to the problem.

For instance, the controversial Mosque attended by the Boston Bombers had as its founder an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot.

This shooter in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?

Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country who suppress women, gays and anyone who doesn’t share their views.

She can’t have it both ways. She can’t claim to be supportive of these communities while trying to increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress them.

How does this kind of immigration make our life better? How does this kind of immigration make our country better?

Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people here—in vast numbers—who reject our values?

Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities.

America has already admitted four times more immigrants than any country on earth, and we continue to admit millions more with no real checks or scrutiny.

Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven’t budged in many years.

So whether it’s matter of national security, or nancial security, we can’t afford to keep on going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options.

All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.

I want us all to work together, including in partnership with our Muslim communities. But Muslim communities must cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad – and they do know where they are.

I want to x our schools, roads, bridges and job market. I want every American to succeed. Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that include individuals who preach hate against our own citizens.

I want to protect our citizens – all of our citizens.

Next Release: Donald J. Trump Campaign Schedule for Monday June 13th
Previous Release: Donald J. Trump Addresses Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security

Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Contact The Campaign - Privacy Policy - Tel: 646-736-1779

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrum*pB.cyoemnt/perreinsgsy-roeulremasoebsi/ldeonnuamldb-ej.r-tyrouumapr-eaadgdrreeesinsgesto-treercreoirviesmpe-riimodmicigterxattimone-sasnagde-snafrtioomnaDl-osneacldurJit.yTrump

for

President,

ISnec.attle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

7/8

3/13/2017

Case 2:1D7on-acldvJ-.0Tr0um13p A5d-dJreLsRses TeDrroorcisumm, Imemnitgr6ati8on-,1and FNailtieondal 0Se3c/u1rit3y/|1D7onaldPJaTgruemp2fo7r Porefs2id0en5t
*By entering your mobile number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Message and data rates may apply. Text "STOP" to opt-out. T&C/Privacy Policy: sms-terms/88022

EXH. F TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

8/8

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 28 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

DonaCldaJs. Teru2m:p1o7n T-cwvitt-e0r: 0"O1u3r w5a-yJoLf lRife is Dundoecr uthrmeaet bnytR6ad8ic-a1l IslaFmialenddH0illa3ry/1C3lin/t1on7canPnoat egveen b2ri9ngohefrs2e0lf t5o say the words."

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

Our way of life is under threat by Radical Islam and Hillary Clinton cannot even bring herself to say the words.

RETWEETS
14,876

LIKES
42,625

8:50 PM - 28 Jul 2016

[ 4.6K \ 15K

43K

Donald J. Tru©m20p17 TK$witter
@realDonaldTrump
45th President of the United States of America

About H©el2p0C1e7nTtweritteTrerms About Help Center Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info

Privacy policy

Cookies

Ads info

 Joined March 2009

EXH. G TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/758872422028148740

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 30 of 205
EXHIBIT H

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR TDerroocrisummAewanrten6es8s-P1rojecFt:iAlebodut0th3e p/1ro3je/c1t 7 Page 31 of 205

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/about/3/about-the-project?pg=2

Go

JAN

22 captures
3 Feb 07 ­ 27 Apr 15

2006

Terr orism Awar eness Project

After overthrowing the Taliban, the theocratic regime that had provided a base for the 9/11 attack, we returned to our illusion of peace and safety. When the Bush Administration summoned us to war against a second base of terror in Iraq, only half the nation responded to the call. This war has been called a “distraction” from the war on terror, even though the terrorists themselves, beginning with Osama bin Laden, call it the central front of their jihad and have described their goal as making Iraq the next homeland for their terror apparatus. Because of the campaign by the “anti­war” opposition in our own country, we are in a state of denial about the reality of the war that has been declared on us. Consquently, we are grossly unprepared for the dangers that surround us and unwilling to do what is necessary for our safety. Our populace as a whole is ignorant of the threat, underestimates our enemy, and is unaware of its true intent, capabilities and resolve. That lack of understanding and urgency is particularly apparent on our college campuses, where an unwillingness to focus on the face of the enemy is often compounded by a tendency to blame America first.
To dramatize the struggle for survival our nation faces, we concerned students have decided to launch the Terrorism Awareness Project. We will provide informational literature, films, posters, advertisements, speakers, and panel discussions s whose purpose is to make our fellow students aware of the Islamic jihad and the terrorist threat, and to mobilize support for the defense of America and the civilization of the West.
The cost of continued complacency will be lethal. The terrorists will attack us again. The only questions are Where? and When?
The war against the Islamic jihad and its religion of terror will be decisively won if we both understand the nature of the threat that confronts us and have the will to face it. The Terrorism Awareness Project will assist in achieving both these objectives. Under its banner, college students across America can take their place in defending America, which is under siege both abroad and at home.
Faithfully,
Stephen Miller
TAP President
Links Events Contact/About Us Store Support Us Terrorism Ad
© 2007 Terrorism Awareness Project All Rights Reserved.

EXH. H TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://web.archive.org/web/20070203001212/http://www.terrorismawareness.org/about/3/about-the-project?pg=2

Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

1/1

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 32 of 205
EXHIBIT I

3/13/2017

CasIneco2ll:e1ge7, -Tcruvm-p0a0id1e3St5ep-hJeLn MRillerDleod 'cTuermroreismntA6wa8re-n1essFPriolejecdt' 0wa3rn/1ing3o/f1'I7slamPofaasgciesm3' -3CNoNf P2o0liti5cs.com

In college, Trump aide Stephen Miller led controversial 'Terrorism Awareness Project' warning of 'Islamofascism'
By Andrew Kaczynski and Chris Massie, CNN @ Updated 3:40 PM ET, Wed February 15, 2017

Source: CNN
Miller hammers down on voter fraud claim 02:52

Story highlights
Stephen Miller's hardline views on Islam and terrorism took shape while he was a student at Duke University.
Miller helped launch the "Terrorism Awareness Project," aimed at educating students about the risk of "Islamofascism."

(CNN) — White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller has garnered attention in recent weeks as one of the chief architects behind President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The 31-year-old aide's hardline views on Islam and terrorism took shape while he was still a student at Duke University. It was there, in the 2007 spring semester of his senior year, that Miller helped launch and run the "Terrorism Awareness Project," an initiative, Miller wrote at the time, that was aimed at educating students about the risk of "Islamofascism."

A CNN KFile review of Miller's comments on TV and on his blog for the project, which is available on the Web archive, reveal Miller's belief that the US and western civilization are at war with Islamic jihadists. Miller did not respond to multiple requests for comment from CNN's KFile for this story.

EXH. I TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

httpM://willwewr.csnenCr.cavosemed/N2a0o1.s72/:n012a7/1-tc5iov/p-n0ol0ait1ilc3cs5/ak-JfmiLleR-psutesphceno-morildleirn-taertroorri,spmr-eawsaidreennests, and co-founder of the initiative6, 1w5hSiecchSonewdataAtlevs,eWl.a, SAutne9.8c41h00e04 d by 1/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasIneco2ll:e1ge7, -Tcruvm-p0a0id1e3St5ep-hJeLn MRillerDleod 'cTuermroreismntA6wa8re-n1essFPriolejecdt' 0wa3rn/1ing3o/f1'I7slamPofaasgciesm3' -4CNoNf P2o0liti5cs.com

Miller served as national campus coordinator, president, and co-founder of the initiative, which was launched by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a right-wing group which describes its missions as combating "the e㴂orts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror."

A key premise of the project, Miller wrote in a blog post, was that schools and universities under left-wing inﬂuence had failed to educate students about the risk of what the project's leaders called "Islamofascism" and had allowed the ideology to penetrate school systems and academia.

"Gripped by complacency and the omnipresent force of political correctness, our nation has failed to educate our youth about the holy war being waged against us and what needs to be done to defeat the Jihadists that are waging this war," Miller wrote. "American kids attend school in an educational system corrupted by the hard left. In this upside-down world, America is the villain and Jihadists the victims of our foreign policy. Instead of opening eyes, we are fastening blindfolds."

The mission, Miller added, was to "provide informational literature, ﬁlms, posters, advertisements, speakers, and panel discussions whose purpose is to make our fellow students aware of the Islamic jihad and the terrorist threat, and to mobilize support for the defense of America and the civilization of the West."

The main e㴂ort taken on by the group was putting on "Islamofascism Awareness Week" at college campuses around the country. One poster for the event available on the Web archive depicts the execution of a woman by a member of the Taliban.

A guide available on the Web archive outlined suggestions to college students on how to put on events for the week.

The guide suggested students do a sit-in in Women's Studies Departments "to protest the silence of Women's Studies programs and Women's Centers in our universities while women are su㴂ering brutal and inhumane treatment in the Islamic world."

It also suggests hosting a ﬁlming of "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" which "reveals the violent, expansionary ideology of the so called 'religion of peace' that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government."

EXH. I TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/kfile-stephen-miller-terrorism-awareness

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasIneco2ll:e1ge7, -Tcruvm-p0a0id1e3St5ep-hJeLn MRillerDleod 'cTuermroreismntA6wa8re-n1essFPriolejecdt' 0wa3rn/1ing3o/f1'I7slamPofaasgciesm3' -5CNoNf P2o0liti5cs.com

EXH. I TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

httpT://hwewwa.rccnnCh.caivosemed/N20os1.i7t2/e:0127a/1-lc5sv/op-0ol0iint1icc3s5l/uk-JfdiLleeR-ssteaphgenr-aminillye,r-mterirdo-ri2sm0-0a0wsareannesims ation ﬁlm that features the wor6d15"SJeihcSoanedda"tAtlesv,ueW.p, SAetre9i.8m4100p04osed 3/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasIneco2ll:e1ge7, -Tcruvm-p0a0id1e3St5ep-hJeLn MRillerDleod 'cTuermroreismntA6wa8re-n1essFPriolejecdt' 0wa3rn/1ing3o/f1'I7slamPofaasgciesm3' -6CNoNf P2o0liti5cs.com

The archived site also includes a grainy, mid-2000s animation ﬁlm that features the word "Jihad" superimposed over the United States and set to the musical selection Carmina Burana. The ﬁlm, "What Every American Needs To Know About Jihad" listed Islamic terrorists and showed quotes of Osama Bin Laden. Ads by the group in the Duke Chronicle advertised screenings of another ﬁlm "Obsession," a documentary on radical Islam screened on campuses which some critics charged as incendiary and Islamophobic.

In February 2007, the group attempted to run an ad in campus newspapers nationwide, but newspapers refused to run it. Fox News reported at the time the ad was designed by Robert Spencer, a man who the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation league have labeled "anti-Muslim." The ad argued that jihad "is about the global rule of radical Islam" and constitutes a war against Christians, Jews, women, and gays, alongside quotations attributed to Osama bin Laden and others.

In a February 2007 appearance on Fox and Friends, Miller said the decision by some universities not to run the ad showed their bias.

"That's what so insane, is that in today's environment on college campuses, you can have these professors saying that we fabricated 9/11, you can have people like Samuel Arion teaching, who were indicted for terrorist ties, you can have, like at Duke, we had a conference come to the university where people were actually recruited to interfere against Israeli anti-terror operations," Miller said. "You've got this insane stu㴂 happening on our campuses, but you can't run a simple fact-based ad that talks about the threat of radical Islam."

A screen grab from a Terrorism Awareness Project video.

Spencer wrote in an email to CNN's KFile that he didn't remember writing the ad, but he said he was "of course" pleased that Miller had attained an inﬂuential role in the White House and defended himself against the criticism that his views are "anti-Muslim."

"The idea that those who call attention to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat are 'extreme thinkers on the

right' is false and malicious propaganda spread by the SPLC, a hate group dedicated to defaming and thereby marginalizing voices that dissent from its hard-Left, globalist, internationalist line," Spencer said. "I am no more

EXH. I TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

http':a//wnwtiw-M.cnunCs.caloismme /N'20oth1. 72a/:0n127/1f-oc5v/ep-0osl0it1oic3fs5/tk-hJfiLeleR-Nsteapzhiesn-wmeillreer-t'earrnortiis-mG-earwmaraenne.s'sThat any of our views are remot6e1l5ySceocSonnetdartoAtlvev,eeW.r,sSAiate9l.8i41s0004a

4/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasIneco2ll:e1ge7, -Tcruvm-p0a0id1e3St5ep-hJeLn MRillerDleod 'cTuermroreismntA6wa8re-n1essFPriolejecdt' 0wa3rn/1ing3o/f1'I7slamPofaasgciesm3' -7CNoNf P2o0liti5cs.com

'anti-Muslim' than foes of the Nazis were 'anti-German.' That any of our views are remotely controversial is a testimony to how corrupt and compromised you and your colleagues are."

David Horowitz, the founder of the project, said that he didn't remember Miller's involvement, but said that the two have known each other since Miller was in high school and that he recommended Miller to former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (Miller worked as her press secretary). Asked how he thought Miller's views on Islam had evolved since he participated in the project, Horowitz said he didn't know, adding, "I know that he admires my work. As many normal people do."

New Utah bigamy law passes Senate after 'Sister Wives' suit
'SNL' is right: Ivanka is complicit
After ﬁring Preet Bharara, President Trump beware
Congressional deadline arrives for DOJ evidence on Trump wiretap claims

EXH. I TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/kfile-stephen-miller-terrorism-awareness

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

5/5

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 38 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:S1te7v-ecBvan-n0o0n i1n320510-:J'ILslRam isDnoot ca uremligieonnotf p6ea8c-e1. IslaFmiilseadre0lig3io/n1o3f s/u1b7missPiona' g- CeN3N9Poloitifcs2.c0om5

Steve Bannon in 2010: 'Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission'
By Andrew Kaczynski, CNN @ Updated 8:51 PM ET, Tue January 31, 2017

Ad : (0:05)

Skip Ad

Bannon seen as most inﬂuential Trump adviser 02:54

Story highlights
"Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission," Bannon said.

(CNN) — President Trump's chief strategist, former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, once dismissed the notion that Islam is a religion of peace, describing it in a 2010 radio interview as "a religion of submission."
Bannon made the comments on "Western Word Radio with Avi Davis," an online right-wing radio station.

Bannon mocked George W. Bush for proclaiming "Islam is a religion of peace."

In the segment, Bannon, who at the time served on the board of Breitbart, criticized former President George W. Bush for what he and fellow guest conservative columnist Diana West described as injecting political correctness into the federal government.

Bannon mocked Bush for proclaiming "Islam is a religion of peace."

"Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission," Bannon said. "I mean, the whole thing is just, he is the epitome, he's a Republican version--not a conservative--he's a Republican

EXH. J TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

httpe://swtwawb.lcisnnCh.camosmee/Nn20ot1,. 72c/:0o117u/3-nc1v/tp-r0oyl0it1icc3ls5u/k-bJfiLlevR-ebarnsnioonn-oon-fistlhame/Clintons. That's all they are. It's the baby boo6m15erS,encSoanerdactiAtslevs,eiW.s, tSAicte9,.8h4100e04wants 1/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:S1te7v-ecBvan-n0o0n i1n320510-:J'ILslRam isDnoot ca uremligieonnotf p6ea8c-e1. IslaFmiilseadre0lig3io/n1o3f s/u1b7missPiona' g- CeN4N0Poloitifcs2.c0om5

establishment, country club version of the Clintons. That's all they are. It's the baby boomer, narcissistic, he wants

to feel loved."

KevinFileman
December 2010

Share

Cookie policy

5.5K

The word Islam means submission, and a Muslim is one who submits to God. The Arabic root of the word Islam means "to be safe" and is connected to the word "peace."

A spokesperson for the Trump administration did not respond to a request for a comment before publication.

Bannon's comments shed light on his views on Islam, just as his role in the White House comes under intense scrutiny.

Bannon played a key role in designing and implementing Trump's executive order banning citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, suspending the US refugee admissions program for four months, and indeﬁnitely banning Syrian refugees from being relocated to the US.

Over the weekend, Trump signed another executive order elevating Bannon, a political strategist, to a principal position on the National Security Council, in a break from prior administration's practice.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to clarify the deﬁnition of Islam.

New Utah bigamy law passes Senate after 'Sister Wives' suit
Mayor: Democrats can't cut ties with Trump voters

Japan's largest warship to train with US Navy

EXH. J TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

http://www.cnnC.caosme /N20oA1. 7f2/t:01e17/r3-c1ﬁv/pr-0oinl0it1gic3s5P/k-JrfiLeleRe-btanBnohna-orna-irsala,mP/ resident Trump beware

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:S1te7v-ecBvan-n0o0n i1n320510-:J'ILslRam isDnoot ca uremligieonnotf p6ea8c-e1. IslaFmiilseadre0lig3io/n1o3f s/u1b7missPiona' g- CeN4N1Poloitifcs2.c0om5 After ﬁring Preet Bharara, President Trump beware

EXH. J TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/kfile-bannon-on-islam/

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/3

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 42 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0S0te1p3he5n-BJaLnnRon inD20o14c: Wume Aerenatt W68ar-W1ith RFaidleicdal I0sla3m/1- 3Th/1e N7ew PoarkgTeim4es3 of 205

T T E T
T B T T T

Site Mobile Navigation

U.S.

Stephen

Bannon

in 2014: We

Are at War With Radical Islam

B

TT H E EB

EXH. K TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.n times.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen- annon-war-with-radical-islam.html

Seattle, WA 98104

4/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0S0te1p3he5n-BJaLnnRon inD20o14c: Wume Aerenatt W68ar-W1ith RFaidleicdal I0sla3m/1- 3Th/1e N7ew PoarkgTeim4es4 of 205

Stephen K. Bannon, left, President Trump’s chief strategist, and Reince Priebus on the morning of the inauguration.

B

B

T

T

B

I

H

T

T

I

B

I

H

B

I E

I B
I

EXH. K TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.n times.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen- annon-war-with-radical-islam.html

Seattle, WA 98104

5/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0S0te1p3he5n-BJaLnnRon inD20o14c: Wume Aerenatt W68ar-W1ith RFaidleicdal I0sla3m/1- 3Th/1e N7ew PoarkgTeim4es5 of 205

I

H

Steven Bannon. Module 3 – Should Christians impose limits on ...

I

I

I

II

B

T

T B H
II

I
I
T B
I

B

I

E

II II

Steven Bannon. Module 3 – Should Christians impose limits on ...

EXH. K TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.n times.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen- annon-war-with-radical-islam.html

Seattle, WA 98104

6/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0S0te1p3he5n-BJaLnnRon inD20o14c: Wume Aerenatt W68ar-W1ith RFaidleicdal I0sla3m/1- 3Th/1e N7ew PoarkgTeim4es6 of 205

T

T

II

B

E

T

E

E

I

I

I

B

I

I

I

B I
I I
E

B

I

H

I

EXH. K TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

I NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.n times.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen- annon-war-with-radical-islam.html

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

7/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0S0te1p3he5n-BJaLnnRon inD20o14c: Wume Aerenatt W68ar-W1ith RFaidleicdal I0sla3m/1- 3Th/1e N7ew PoarkgTeim4es7 of 205

E

I

I

B

I

H

I

I I
I

I

I I

I

I

T

I

B T T

E

B

I

I

I

EXH. K TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.n times.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen- annon-war-with-radical-islam.html

Seattle, WA 98104

8/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0S0te1p3he5n-BJaLnnRon inD20o14c: Wume Aerenatt W68ar-W1ith RFaidleicdal I0sla3m/1- 3Th/1e N7ew PoarkgTeim4es8 of 205

I

B

B
I B
I I

T BB

More on NYTimes.com

Trump Wants Faster Growth. The Fed Isn’t So Sure.

Economic Trends
The Fed’s Era of Easy Money Is Ending

Feature
The New Party of No

EXH. K TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.n times.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/stephen- annon-war-with-radical-islam.html

Seattle, WA 98104

9/10

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 49 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001Ba3nn5o-nJDLriRvin DorocecBuemhinednTrtum6p8's-1HardFlinieleImdm0i 3ra/t1ion3B/1an7, O iPciaalsgSea 50 of 205

Subscribe

Sign In

U.S.
BANNON DRIVING FORCE BEHIND TRUMP'S HARDLINE IMMIGRATION BAN, OFFICIALS SAY
BY REUTERS ON 1/30/17 AT 6:56 PM

Close
Who is Steve Bannon? ‘The Most Dangerous Political Operative In America’

 

00:02

U.S.

DONALD TRUMP

STEVE BANNON

IMMIGRATION BAN

01:27  

When Donald Trump's administration put together its controversial executive order on immigration, it was Steve Bannon – the populist firebrand fast emerging as the president's right-hand man – pushing a hard line.

Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) interpreted the order to mean that lawful permanent residents green card holders – who hailed from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in the immigration order would not face additional screening when they entered the country.

But they were quickly overruled by Bannon, who is Trump’s chief strategist and oversaw the drafting of the executive order

along wiEthXHW. LhiTtOe HMoAuCsLeEOseDn-BioArLpLoDliEcCy.adviser Stephen Miller, a c1lose ally of BanNnOoRnT'sH,WthEeSoTfIfMicMiaIGlsRsAaNidT. RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve- annon-immi ration- an-immi ration-muslim-550415

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

1/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001Ba3nn5o-nJDLriRvin DorocecBuemhinednTrtum6p8's-1HardFlinieleImdm0i 3ra/t1ion3B/1an7, O iPciaalsgSea 51 of 205

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Subscribe

Sign In

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Steve Bannon during a swearing in ceremony for senior stay at the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 22.
REUTERS/CARLOS BARRIA

"They were in charge of this operation," one senior DHS official said, adding that the experts were "almost immediately overruled by the White House, which means by Bannon and Miller."

A senior national security official described the pair as a "tag team" pushing Trump's key policies, including the immigration order which bars the entry of refugees and places a temporary hold on people from seven countries - Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Libya.

The inclusion of green card holders from those countries intensified opposition to an executive order that sparked legal challenges, protests at airports and sharp criticism from inside the Republican Party, including from some Trump allies.

DHS officials say there was little or no White House consultation with immigration, customs and border security agencies on the immigration policy change, causing widespread confusion over how to implement Trump's order.

A senior administration official said the order went through a review by "key people" at DHS and the White House National Security Council, and that several immigration staff on Capitol Hill were involved in drafting the order.

But officials said Bannon was the driving force throughout.

The White House had no immediate comment on Bannon's role.

EXH. L TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve- annon-immi ration- an-immi ration-muslim-550415

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

2/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001Ba3nn5o-nJDLriRvin DorocecBuemhinednTrtum6p8's-1HardFlinieleImdm0i 3ra/t1ion3B/1an7, O iPciaalsgSea 52 of 205

Critics have accused Bannon of harboring anti-Semitic and white nationalist sentiments. Under Bannon's leadership, his

Breitbart website presented a number of conspiracy theories about Trump's Democratic rival in the 2016 election, Hillary

Clinton, as well as Republicans deemed to be lacking in conservative bona fides.

Subscribe

Sign In

Bannon has ascribed his interest in populism and American nationalism to a desire to curb what he views as the corrosive effects

of globalization. He has rejected what he called the "ethno-nationalist" tendencies of some in the movement.

After becoming chief executive of Trump's election campaign in August, the former Goldman Sachs banker and Navy veteran helped lead him to victory over Clinton. He was then appointed by Trump as senior counselor and chief strategist - jobs not subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.

He has been an almost constant presence by Trump's side in the first 10 days of the administration - in the White House for a meeting with American manufacturers, at CIA headquarters the day after Trump was sworn in, and in the Oval Office during British Prime Minister Theresa May's visit.

He appears to have greatly expanded his power in the first 10 days of Trump's presidency.

Elevation to NSC

Trump gave him an unprecedented seat in the NSC's top-level meetings and potentially narrowed the role played by the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Bannon has also asserted authority over almost all written statements from the White House and the NSC and has sent back documents for rewrites as he sees fit, one NSC official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Critics, including four senior U.S. intelligence officers, called the decision to formalize Bannon's role at the NSC meetings a mistake, saying it risks politicizing decisions on national security.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday defended Bannon's inclusion in the NSC.

Related Stories
Robert Reich: The Dangerous Rise of Steve Bannon

Twitter Users Plead: 'Stop President Bannon'

Steve Bannon Labels Media 'Opposition Party'

Susan Rice, the former national security adviser in former President Barack Obama's administration, tweeted on Sunday: "This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy."
Bannon and Miller are drowning out the opinions of more moderate advisers like White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, said a senior DHS official and two people in Washington who work closely with the White House on immigration and a range of other issues.
One of those people and the DHS official said Priebus felt he had placed enough of his fellow moderate Republicans in key positions at the White House as a counterbalance to Bannon and Miller, but he has been frustrated at their outsized influence so far, especially on issues of immigration and national security.
A White House official declined to comment.

REQUEST REPRINT OR SUBMIT CORRECTION

EXH. L TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-steve- annon-immi ration- an-immi ration-muslim-550415

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

3/10

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 53 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0Tr0um1p3s5ig-nJsLexRecutiDveoorcduermtoekenept o6u8t 'r-a1dicalFIsillaemdic0te3rr/o1ris3ts/'1-7CNNPPoaligtices.c5om4 of 205

Trump signs executive order to keep out 'radical Islamic terrorists'
By Dan Merica, CNN @ Updated 2:02 PM ET, Mon January 30, 2017

Source: CNN
Trump: We don't want them here 02:50

Story highlights
Democrats blasted Trump's move

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that indeﬁnitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the ﬂow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called "extreme vetting" of immigrants.

Trump also signed a second executive action on Friday that would spur military spending

Titled "Protection Of The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," the executive order would start to make good on Trump's promise to tighten borders and halt certain refugees from entering the United States.

The text of the order -- in a break from drafts that had been circulating earlier this week -- drops a longtime Trump campaign pledge to establish safe zones in Syria to give Syrian nationals displaced by the ongoing civil war in the country a place to relocate.

The order bars all persons from certain "terror-prone" countries from entering the United States for 90 days and suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days until it is reinstated "only for nationals of countries for whom" members of Trump's Cabinet deem can be properly vetted.

EXH. M TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/

Seattle, WA 98104

1/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0Tr0um1p3s5ig-nJsLexRecutiDveoorcduermtoekenept o6u8t 'r-a1dicalFIsillaemdic0te3rr/o1ris3ts/'1-7CNNPPoaligtices.c5om5 of 205

Understand Trump's refugee restrictions 01:18

The countries impacted are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, according to a White House oࡸcial.

"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," the order signed by Trump reads.

The total number of refugees admitted into the United States would also be capped during the 2017 ﬁscal year at 50,000, down more than half from the current level of 110,000.

"I am establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America," Trump said during the signing at the Pentagon after the swearing-in of Defense Secretary James Mattis. "We don't want them here."

He added, "We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are ﬁghting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people."

Trump's order will also cancel the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which once allowed repeat travelers to the United States to be able to forgo an in-person interview to renew their visa. Under the new order, these travelers will now have to have in-person interviews.

At the Pentagon, Trump met privately for about an hour with Mattis, Vice President Mike Pence, Security Adviser Mike Flynn and military oࡸcials and they discussed accelerating the defeat of ISIS, confronting global threats like North Korea, military readiness and the National Guard, a Defense oࡸcial told CNN. The meeting took place in "the tank," secure room where the Joint Chiefs meet.

EXH. M TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

httpR://wewlawt.cennCd.caosAme r/N2t0oi1.c72/l:0e117/:2-c7Hv/p-o0ol0iwt1ic3s5D/t-rJuoLmRnpa-plldansT-trou-smignp-executive-action-Tornu-rmefupgeaesls-eoxtsreimgne-evedttiangs/ econd execu6t1iv5eSeaccSonetidaotAtnlev,oeW.n, SAFte9r.8id4100a04y that 2/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0Tr0um1p3s5ig-nJsLexRecutiDveoorcduermtoekenept o6u8t 'r-a1dicalFIsillaemdic0te3rr/o1ris3ts/'1-7CNNPPoaligtices.c5om6 of 205

Related Article: How Donald Trump changed the presidency in 7 days

Trump also signed a second executive action on Friday that would spur military spending and, as Trump said, "begin the great rebuilding of the Armed Services of the United States."

The President added that the executive action instructs Mattis to begin "developing a plan for new planes, new ships, new resources and new tools for our men and women in uniform."

The ban and its impact

Trump's order on refugees has been something the White House has been considering for days and the President was seen with the document on his Air Force One desk Thursday when he ﬂew to Philadelphia.

What we know so far What it's like in the 7 impacted countries How the countries were chosen What the ban says: The full text What to know about the restrictions Is the ban legal? These are the people directly impacted The ban's Christian focus A family's plight just got more complicated Bergen: Trump's big mistake All of Trump's executive orders, memos and proclamations Comparing Trump to previous presidents

House Speaker Paul Ryan praised Trump's orders on Friday.
"Our number one responsibility is to protect the homeland. We are a compassionate nation, and I support the refugee resettlement program, but it's time to re-evaluate and strengthen the visa-vetting process," Ryan said in a statement, adding, "President Trump is right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country."

Prioritizing Christians over Muslims

EXH. M TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/

Seattle, WA 98104

3/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0Tr0um1p3s5ig-nJsLexRecutiDveoorcduermtoekenept o6u8t 'r-a1dicalFIsillaemdic0te3rr/o1ris3ts/'1-7CNNPPoaligtices.c5om7 of 205

Khizr Khan on Trump's refugee ban 03:23

By signing the measures, Trump is making good on his promise to block Syrian and certain other refugees from entering the United States and his murkier pledge of banning Muslim immigration into the United States, a vow that his aides have walked back as being directed at countries seen as terror hotbeds.

The order also gave the Department of Homeland Security leeway to prioritize refugee claims made by people "on the basis of religious based persecution" as long as the person applying for refugee status is "a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

This would make it easier for Christians and other religious minorities in majority Muslim countries from entering the United States than it would for Muslims in general.

Trump did not back away from the idea that he is prioritizing Christians over Muslims in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network taped before he signed the measures on Friday.

Related Article: Trump says US will prioritize Christian refugees

"We are going to help them," Trump said about persecuted Christians. "They've been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping oߤ the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair."

Trump did not cite a reason or oߤer any evidence about why the agencies that vet refugees, including the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, would have prioritized Muslim refugees over Christians.

EXH. M TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/

Seattle, WA 98104

4/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0Tr0um1p3s5ig-nJsLexRecutiDveoorcduermtoekenept o6u8t 'r-a1dicalFIsillaemdic0te3rr/o1ris3ts/'1-7CNNPPoaligtices.c5om8 of 205

'This is a Muslim ban'

Democrats blasted Trump's move -- even before they saw the text of the documents -- arguing that while it may not ban all Muslims from entering the United States, it still is discriminatory.
"Make no mistake -- this is a Muslim ban," Sen. Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California, said in a statement.
"Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded has been stomped upon," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. "Taking in immigrants and refugees is not only humanitarian but has also boosted our economy and created jobs decade after decade. This is one of the most backward and nasty executive orders that the president has issued."

McCaul: Trump to freeze Syrian refugee program 02:19

The American Civil Liberties Union also called Trump's action "just a euphemism for discrimination against Muslims."

Executive orders: Read more
All of Trump's executive orders, memos and proclamations Will the orders and actions stick? How Trump's actions stack up against

"Identifying speciﬁc countries with Muslim majorities and carving out exceptions for minority religions ﬂies in the face of the constitutional principle that bans the government from either favoring or discriminating against particular religions," American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement.
And the Council on American-Islamic Relations vowed it would ﬁle a lawsuit over the order.

previous presidents

"There is no evidence that refugees -- the most thoroughly

What Trump can and cannot do

vetted of all people entering our nation -- are a threat to

EXH. M TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

http://www.cnnC.caosme /N20o1. 72/:0117/2-c7v/p-0ol0it1ic3s5/t-rJuLmRp-plans-to-sign-executive-action-noan-trieofungaeelss-eexctruemritey-v,"etCtinAg/IR National Li6ti1g5aSteiocSonnedaDtAtilreve,ecW.,tSAotre9.8L41e00n04 a F.

5/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0Tr0um1p3s5ig-nJsLexRecutiDveoorcduermtoekenept o6u8t 'r-a1dicalFIsillaemdic0te3rr/o1ris3ts/'1-7CNNPPoaligtices.c5om9 of 205

What's the di㴂erence between and order and action?

national security," CAIR National Litigation Director Lena F. Masri said in a statement. "This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality."

countries would be barred from entering the US.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the number of days persons from the banned

CNN's Ryan Browne and Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.

New Utah bigamy law passes Senate after 'Sister Wives' suit
No hint from Sessions of impending US attorney ﬁrings, source says
'SNL' is right: Ivanka is complicit
Republicans brace for CBO report of health care coverage

EXH. M TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/

Seattle, WA 98104

6/6

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 60 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017
thebrodyfile

CaseB2ro:d1y 7Fi-lecEvx-c0lu0si1ve3: P5r-eJsiLdeRnt TruDmopcSauyms Peernsetc6ut8ed-C1hrisFtiailnes dWi0ll 3Be/1G3iv/e1n 7PriorPityaAgs eRe6fug1eeos f| C2B0N5.com

Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees

01-27-2017 David Brody
+126
Tweet

In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, President Donald Trump says persecuted Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States. “We are going to help them,” President Trump tells CBN News. “They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair.”
The Brody File conducted the interview Friday morning in the Blue Room at The White House. More newsworthy clips are coming soon. The entire interview can be seen this Sunday at 11pm on Freeform (cable TV, formerly ABC Family Channel) during our special CBN News show. This is just the third interview President Trump has done from The White House and it will be the only interview that will air in its’ entirety this weekend.
MANDATORY VIDEO AND COURTESY: CBN NEWS/THE BRODY FILE
DAVID BRODY: “Persecuted Christians, we’ve talked about this, the refugees overseas. The refugee program, or the refugee changes you’re looking to make. As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “Yes.”
DAVID BRODY: “You do?”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.”

Share

Tweet

Email

+126

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Login

EXH. NWrTitOe aMcAomCmLEenOt D-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-aSse-arettflueg,eWesA 98104 7/14

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 62 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1ru3m5p -BJarLsRRefugDeeoscanudmCietiznents6o8f 7-M1usliFmilCeodunt0rie3s/-1T3h/e1N7ew YPorak gTieme6s 3 of 205

https://nyti.ms/2kcXwk4
POLITICS
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and HELENE COOPER JAN. 27, 2017 WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States, and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries.
In an executive order that he said was part of an extreme vetting plan to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists,” Mr. Trump also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.
“We don’t want them here,” Mr. Trump said of Islamist terrorists during a signing ceremony at the Pentagon. “We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country, and love deeply our people.”
Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump explained to an interviewer for the Christian Broadcasting Network that Christians in Syria were “horribly treated” and alleged that under previous administrations, “if you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.”
“I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them,” the president said.

EXH. O TO MACLEOD-BALL

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1ru3m5p -BJarLsRRefugDeeoscanudmCietiznents6o8f 7-M1usliFmilCeodunt0rie3s/-1T3h/e1N7ew YPorak gTieme6s 4 of 205

In fact, the United States accepts tens of thousands of Christian refugees. According to the Pew Research Center, almost as many Christian refugees (37,521) were admitted as Muslim refugees (38,901) in the 2016 fiscal year.
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”
The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Additionally, Mr. Trump signed a memorandum on Friday directing what he called “a great rebuilding of the armed services,” saying it would call for budget negotiations to acquire new planes, new ships and new resources for the nation’s military.
“Our military strength will be questioned by no one, but neither will our dedication to peace,” Mr. Trump said.
Announcing his “extreme vetting” plan, the president invoked the specter of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Most of the 19 hijackers on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., were from Saudi Arabia. The rest were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. None of those countries are on Mr. Trump’s visa ban list.
Human rights activists roundly condemned Mr. Trump’s actions, describing them as officially sanctioned religious persecution dressed up to look like an effort to make the United States safer.
The International Rescue Committee called it “harmful and hasty.” The American Civil Liberties Union described it as a “euphemism for discriminating against Muslims.” Raymond Offensheiser, the president of Oxfam America, said the

EXH. O TO MACLEOD-BALL

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1ru3m5p -BJarLsRRefugDeeoscanudmCietiznents6o8f 7-M1usliFmilCeodunt0rie3s/-1T3h/e1N7ew YPorak gTieme6s 5 of 205

order would harm families around the world who are threatened by authoritarian governments.
“The refugees impacted by today’s decision are among the world’s most vulnerable people — women, children, and men — who are simply trying to find a safe place to live after fleeing unfathomable violence and loss,” Mr. Offensheiser said.
The president signed the executive order shortly after issuing a statement noting that Friday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, an irony that many of his critics highlighted on Twitter. The statement did not mention Jews, although it cited the “depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”
Mr. Trump’s actions came during a swearing­in ceremony for Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, a former Marine general. Standing in the Hall of Heroes at the Pentagon, Mr. Trump hailed the members of America’s military as “the backbone of this country” and described Mr. Mattis as a “man of action.” The president mistakenly referred to Mr. Mattis as a “soldier,” a term abhorred by Marines.
Mr. Trump has been deferential to Mr. Mattis, who has quickly established himself as a top aide whose advice the president is willing to take. On Friday, Mr. Trump said he would let Mr. Mattis “override” him by banning torture during terror interrogations even though Mr. Trump believes the tactics do work in getting information from suspects.
In a remarkable show of deference to his own subordinate, Mr. Trump said during an earlier news conference Friday morning with Theresa May, the British prime minister, that he would let Mr. Mattis decide about whether to use torture in interrogations. Mr. Mattis has said he does not believe torture is effective.
“I don’t necessarily agree, but I will tell you that he will override because I’m giving him that power,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m going to rely on him. I happen to feel that it does work.”

EXH. O TO MACLEOD-BALL

3

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1ru3m5p -BJarLsRRefugDeeoscanudmCietiznents6o8f 7-M1usliFmilCeodunt0rie3s/-1T3h/e1N7ew YPorak gTieme6s 6 of 205

Mr. Trump appeared to be struggling with the issue even as he spoke, returning several times to his own belief in the effectiveness of torture even as he stated that he would let Mr. Mattis decide.
“But I’m going with our leaders,” he said. “We are going to win, with or without.”
Then he added, “But I do disagree.”
Mr. Mattis spent his first week as defense secretary trying to reassure not only American allies, but also military rank and file, that the United States will not abandon a national security structure that has stood in place since the end of World War II. He has told officials in the Pentagon building that at an uncertain time, he intends, as defense secretary, to provide an even­keeled, measured approach to national security issues.
Before the signing ceremony, Mr. Trump met with Mr. Mattis and his military chiefs for about an hour. The meeting — which took place in a Pentagon secure room known as “the tank” — included introductions for Mr. Trump to his military chiefs of staff. The meeting was attended by Michael Flynn, the national security adviser; Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the chiefs of the four services and the National Guard.
The men discussed how to accelerate the fight against the Islamic State and North Korea and how to deal with a host of global challenges, said a defense official who was not authorized to talk publicly about the internal talks. The leaders also discussed how to improve military readiness.
The newly sworn­in secretary of defense also gave Mr. Trump a little of what the president has been asking — or tweeting — for. On Thursday, Mr. Mattis ordered a review of the controversial F­35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has been criticized by Mr. Trump for its cost overruns.
Mr. Mattis also ordered that plans for a new Air Force One — another project that has come under fire from Mr. Trump — should be reviewed, “with the specific

EXH. O TO MACLEOD-BALL

4

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

4/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1ru3m5p -BJarLsRRefugDeeoscanudmCietiznents6o8f 7-M1usliFmilCeodunt0rie3s/-1T3h/e1N7ew YPorak gTieme6s 7 of 205

objective of identifying means to substantially reduce the program’s costs while delivering needed capabilities.”
The F­35 review, Mr. Mattis said in a memo, will also look at how to reduce costs while still meeting requirements set out for the fighter jet program.
During his confirmation hearings this month, Mr. Mattis defended Twitter messages from Mr. Trump criticizing the F­35 program. Mr. Mattis said at the time that Mr. Trump had “in no way shown a lack of support for the program,” adding, “He just wants more bang for the buck.”
The cost of building the F­35 next­generation fighter jet has been an issue at the Pentagon for several years. At an estimated $400 billion over 15 years for 2,443 planes, the fighter jet is the military’s largest weapons project.
Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on January 28, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Targets Muslim Areas in Refugee Ban.

Access to NYTimes.com and all NYTimes apps Unlimited article access, anytime, anywhere Learn more ►

EXH. O TO MACLEOD-BALL

5

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

5/6

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1ru3m5p -BJarLsRRefugDeeoscanudmCietiznents6o8f 7-M1usliFmilCeodunt0rie3s/-1T3h/e1N7ew YPorak gTieme6s 8 of 205

Times Insider Access, including behind­the­scenes stories, exclusive events, podcasts, and e­books 1 complimentary digital subscription to give anyone you'd like Learn more ►

Customized delivery options such as Sunday only, Fri.­Sun., weekday delivery, or daily delivery The weekly Sunday magazine and monthly T Magazine 2 complimentary digital subscriptions to give anyone you'd like Learn more ►
© 2017 The New York Times Company

EXH. O TO MACLEOD-BALL

6

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

6/6

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 69 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

DonCalad Js.eTru2m:1p o7n-Tcwvit-te0r:0"C1h3ri5st-iaJnLs Rin theDMoiddcleu-Emaset hnatve6b8ee-n1exeFcuitleeddin l0ar3ge/1nu3m/1be7rs. WPeacagnenot7al0lowotfhi2s h0o5rror to continue!"

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

RETWEETS
60,377

LIKES
227,408

7:03 AM - 29 Jan 2017

[ 55K \ 60K

227K

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrumpN@ JearwredsaelDepoKn$PauldjTjir@umApWAAKbEo©uA2tL0TE1HeR7remTTlpws·CiJtteeanrnte2r9

~

45th President of thIeSIUSnited

Privacy policy

States of America

Islamic State

Cookies Ads info

@TulsiGabbard @PressSec @StateDept #Christians

 Joined March 20#0M9archForLife

#MarchOnWashington

#MarchTowardLight

EXH. P TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 1/1 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 71 of 205
EXHIBIT

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 72 of 205 The Fix

By Amy B Wang January 29
Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together.

Trump signed orders on Friday not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120 days but also to implement “new vetting measures” to screen out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Refugee entry from Syria, however, would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — is suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give priority to Christian refugees over those of other religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani

told Pirro. “WEhXHic.hQiTsOaMfaAcCtLuEaOlDb-BaAsiLsL, DnEoCt.a religious basis. Perfec1tly legal, perfeNcOtRlyTHsWenEsSiTblIMe.MAIGnRdAtNhTaRt'IsGwHThSaPt RthOeJEbCaTn is based

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

on. It's not based onCrealisgeio2n:.1It7's-cbva-s0ed01o3n5p-lJacLeRs whDeorecuthmereenatr6e 8su-1bstaFnitleiadl e0v3id/1en3c/e17thatPpaegoeple73aroe fse2n0d5ing terrorists into
our country.”
It was unclear when the phone call Giuliani took place and when the commission began working. An email to the White House press office was not immediately returned Sunday.
Clips of the exchange between Giuliani and Pirro quickly went viral Saturday night, with some claiming that Giuliani's statement amounted to admitting Trump's intent had been to institute a ban based on religion.
Others, including Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, have insisted it is not a ban on Muslims, but rather one based on countries from which travel was already restricted under Barack Obama's administration.
Priebus appeared on CBS's “Face the Nation” Sunday morning to say it was possible Trump would expand the list of countries included in the travel ban.
“You can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others,” Priebus told host John Dickerson. “Perhaps we need to take it further.”
Priebus also said there had been weeks of work and “plenty of communication” between the White House, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security regarding the ban.
“We didn't just type this thing up in an office and sign up,” he told Dickerson.
Later on the same program, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) called out Giuliani's interview with Pirro from the night before.
“They can't deny that this is a Muslim ban,” Ellison told Dickerson. “On the campaign trail, [Trump] said he wanted a Muslim ban. ... Rudolph W. Giuliani who helped him write it said that they started out with the intention of a Muslim ban and then they sort of 'languaged' it up so to try to avoid that label, but it is a religiously based ban.”
Senate Democrats vowed to draft legislation to block the travel ban.
“We’re demanding the president reverse these executive orders that go against what we are, everything we have always stood for,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a news conference Sunday morning, noting later that his middle name, Ellis, was originally inspired by Ellis Island.
“It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it will only serve to embolden and inspire those around the globe those that will do us harm,” Schumer added of the ban. “It must be reversed immediately.”

EXH. Q TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Trump's executive orCdaesr esp2a:r1ke7d-cmva-0ss0iv1e3p5r-oJtLeRsts aDt oaicrupomretsnatr6ou8n-1d thFeicleodun0t3ry/1F3ri/d1a7y anPdaSgaetu7r4daoyf, a2s0r5eports surfaced that
dozens of travelers from the affected countries, including green-card holders, were being detained.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Saturday morning challenging Trump’s order after two Iraqi men with immigrant visas were barred from entering the United States at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.
As Giuliani was speaking, Fox News simultaneously aired an alert that noted federal judge Ann M. Donnelly had issued a stay to stop the deportations nationwide.
Donnelly wrote that there was a strong likelihood the order had violated the petitioners' rights to due process and equal protection by the Constitution.
“There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visaholders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order,” Donnelly wrote.
The ACLU hailed the victory.
“Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country,” ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. “Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.”
On Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it did not plan to back off enforcing Trump's orders.
“President Trump’s Executive 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 safety,” the statement read. “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 national security.”
The department said that less than 1 percent of daily international air travelers to the United States had been “inconvenienced” on Saturday.
Matthew Kolken, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo said there has been “a systemic bias against individuals from Muslim countries in the U.S. immigration departments” for years, including under the Obama administration.
“This isn't unprecedented,” Kolken told The Washington Post by phone Sunday. “The unfortunate reality is the executive branch does have vast discretionary authority to determine who they are going to [allow in or not].”

5-Minute FiECxXansHe.eQNwoT.sO2l:e1M7tA-tcCevL-r0E0O1D3-5B-JALLRL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 SeconSdiAgvne., uStpe. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 75 oSf 2ig0n5 up Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Still, Kolken said, he believes “Trump has gone a step further without a doubt” in including even people who are lawful permanent residents and suspending all immigration applications from people from the seven countries on the banned list. If there was evidence of disparate treatment of individuals from the same country — if there were anecdotal evidence of, for example, a Syrian family of one religious background allowed to enter over that of another religious background — then that is where lawsuits could come into play, he said.
“The question becomes whether they're trying to do an end-around by couching the ban as a country-specific ban based on a security-related issues when in reality it's a religious ban,” Kolken said. Read more: Fact Checker: What you need to know about terror threat from foreigners and Trump’s executive order ‘I am heartbroken’: Malala criticizes Trump for ‘closing the door on children’ fleeing violence A ship full of refugees fleeing the Nazis once begged the U.S. for entry. They were turned back. Trump’s travel ban could make Rex Tillerson’s potential job harder, a former defense secretary says
Amy B Wang is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. ¬ Follow @amybwang

PAID PROMOTED STORIES
EXH. Q TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Do you like game shows? Do you like politics? Whatever,
you’ll LOVE The Ciquizza anyway.
Listen on iTunes.
Listen on Stitcher.

Recommended by

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 76 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-DJoLnRald TrDumopcsuayms heen'stex6p8an-d1ing hFisiMleudslim03ba/n1-3C/B1S7NewPsage 77 of 205

NEWS

SHOWS

VIDEO

MORE

SEARCH

WATCH LIVE
MICHAEL BROWN VIDEO

Trending Videos

CBSN LIVE »
CBS This Morning
Welcome back, Charlie Rose!

CBS This Morning
Massive winter storm

CBS This Morning
NYC prepares for blizzard

By REBECCA SHABAD / CBS NEWS / July 25, 2016, 11:04 AM
Donald Trump says he's expanding his Muslim ban

CBS This Morning
GOP health care plan

21 Comments / Share / Tweet / Stumble / Email

Donald Trump said Sunday that the proposal to suspend immigration from any nation compromised by terrorism is actually an expansion of his plan to block Muslims from entering the U.S.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," the GOP presidential nominee was asked to clarify what he meant in his speech accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last week and if it was actually a rollback.
"I don't think so. I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territory. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word 'Muslim.' Remember this. And I'm okay with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim," Trump told "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd.
In Cleveland Thursday night, Trump said that the U.S. "must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place."
Trump added that he only wants to admit people into the U.S. who supports American values and loves Americans.

Sponsored by Microsoft
Ray Wang on the future of digital transformation
Turn an expert’s words into action. Read the Q&A with Ray Wang.
From 60 Minutes
Putin critic says he's one of the lucky ones: "I'm still here"
Does torture get good intel? Ex­Gitmo detainee says, "No"

It's not the first time Trump has characterized his plan this way, which sounds like he could even suspend immigration from countries like France, Belgium and Turkey, which have suffered from terror attacks over the last year or so.

Tortured at Guantanamo, former inmate finds forgiveness

EXHC. RaTmO MpACaLiEgOnD-B2AL0L 1DE6C.

Latest Issues: Wha1t do they stand for?

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-hes-expanding-muslim-ban/

NMORorTeHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Poisone6d15aSgeacino?ndWAhvaet.,6S0te. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

1/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-DJoLnRald TrDumopcsuayms heen'stex6p8an-d1ing hFisiMleudslim03ba/n1-3C/B1S7NewPsage 78 of 205

Trump first called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the

U.S. early lastDDoencaelmd Tbreurm, ap fCewhridstamysasafter the San BernardinWoiltleMrreolarnaitataTcrukm. p move to

ornament @ $149

the White House?

© 2016 CBS InteNraEctWiveSInc. All RSiHghOtsWReSserved. V I D E O

MORE

SEARCH

Poisoned again? What 60 Minutes lTeoaprnTerdumabpoaudt viser speaks out
MIRCuHssiAa'Es oL"lnoBvaegReoOnf dpWaoW,isNwoAhnTiV"tCeHInDaLEtIioVOnEalism

21 Comments / Share / Tweet / Stumble / Email

Viewers react to Marine Le Pen's vision of France

Rebecca Shabad
Rebecca Shabad is a video reporter for CBS News Digital.

Recommended

Sponsored Links by Taboola

The Sweatshirt Designed by an Apple Engineer That's Bringing Manufacturing Back to America
Business Insider | American Giant
15 Simple Tips To Naturally Erase Wrinkles
www.skinuncovered.com
"Brightest Flashlight Ever" is Selling Like Crazy
x700 Tactical Flashlight

SHOW 21 COMMENT S +

Featured in Politics

Popular

.

Promoted Links by Taboola

Massachusetts Homeowners Born Before 1985 Are Getting a Huge Reward
FetchaRate Mortgage Quotes

play VIDEO
Welcome back, Charlie Rose!

My Husband and I Tried Blue Apron, Here's What Happened
Blue Apron

Key Trump surrogates once
led ﬁght vs. WikiLeaks and
Assange
Several had harsh words for them, including Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rep. Peter King and former CIA Director James Woolsey

Man Who Predicted The Election Outcome Makes Next Prediction
Casey Research

Sell Your Home 2x Faster and for 15% More
HomeLight.com

8 PHOTOS
Skydiving dogs

Murder charge after funeral home staffers notice something unusual, call police

Most Discussed

Dennis Bradford to investigators: "She's alive?"

WikiLeaks posts trove of CIA documents detailing hacking tools
3296 COMMENTS

Police: Man raped, beat girlfriend for 2

GOP scores wins as it

weeks for losing purse

advances health bill to replace

25 things you still don't know

Obamacare
1959 COMMENTS

about Barack Obama

Campaign 2016 Just how many almonds does he really
ECeXaasHte,. aRNnoTy.Ow2:aM1y7A-?cCvL-E00O1D3-5B-JALLRL DEC.

Chicago man who beat murder case killed Laatfetestr leavIinssgujeasi:l Wha2t do they stand for?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-hes-expanding-muslim-ban/

NMORorTeHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT Lawma6k1e5rsSdeecomnadnAdvee.v,iSdeten. c4e00 Seattle, WA 98104

2/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-DJoLnRald TrDumopcsuayms heen'stex6p8an-d1ing hFisiMleudslim03ba/n1-3C/B1S7NewPsage 79 of 205

Donald Trump Christmas

ornament @ $149

NEWS

SHOWS

VIDEO

Will Melania Trump move to

the White House?

MORE

SEARCH

Lawmakers demand evidence for TrumpT'ospwTirreutmappcaladivmiser speaks out
MIC1H85A1 CEOoLMnMBEaNgRTeSOndWaW, NwAhTiVtCeHInDaLEtIioVOnEalism

U.S. attorney in New York says he was fired
1481 COMMENTS

EPA chief says carbon dioxide not main cause of global warming
2075 COMMENTS

New Fire TV App

Completely free credit scores

716 Poor

Fair

Good Excellent

See my score

No credit card required

CBSNews.com
Site Map Help Contact Us CBS Bios Careers CBSi Careers Internships Development Programs

CBS Interactive
Privacy Policy Ad Choice Terms of Use Mobile User Agreement About CBS Advertise Closed Captioning CBS News Store

Follow Us
Facebook Twitter RSS Email Newsletters YouTube CBS Radio News CBS Local

Copyright © 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
Search...

EXHC. RaTmO MpACaLiEgOnD-B2AL0L 1DE6C.

Latest Issues: Wha3t do they stand for?

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-hes-expanding-muslim-ban/

NMORorTeHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 3/3 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 80 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JTLruRmp'sDtraovcelubamn heans tre6vo8ke-d160,0F00ilevisdas0fo3r /n1ow3/|1R7euterPs age 81 of 205

EDITION: UNITED STATES

Business Markets World Politics Tech Commentary Breakingviews Money Life

POLITICS | Fri Feb 3, 2017 | 9:00pm EST
Trump's travel ban has revoked 60,000 visas for now

LIVE COVERAGE

100 T H E F I R S T

DAYS

2017 ALFA ROMEO GIULIA
Celebrating more than 105 years of re끐ned Italian style

Legal

VEHICLE DETAILS VIEW GALLERY

TRENDING STORIES
1 Obama lawyers move fast to join ﬁght against Trump

By Mica Rosenberg and Lesley Wroughton | NEW YORK/WASHINGTON
About 60,000 visas were revoked under U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, the State Department said on Friday, in one of several government communications clarifying how the order is being rolled out.

2 Turkey threatens Netherlands with diplomatic sanctions as 'Nazi' row escalates
3 Intel's $15 billion purchase of Mobileye rewrites driverless landscape

The revocation means the government voided travel visas for people trying to enter the United States but the visas could be restored later without a new application, said William Cocks, a spokesman for consular affairs at the State Department.
"We will communicate updates to affected travelers following the 90-day review," he said.

4 Exclusive: Japan plans to send largest warship to South China Sea, sources say
5 Merkel postpones trip to meet Trump due to winter storm

Earlier news reports, citing a government attorney at a federal court hearing, put the ﬁgure at more than 100,000 visas.

The government issued over 11 million immigrant and non-immigrant visas in ﬁscal year 2015, the State Department said.

EXH. S TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN15I2EW

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 981041/4 206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JTLruRmp'sDtraovcelubamn heans tre6vo8ke-d160,0F00ilevisdas0fo3r /n1ow3/|1R7euterPs age 82 of 205

6/6Niki Rahmati, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from Iran, is greeted by
immigration attorney Susan Church (R) at Logan Airport after she cleared U.S. customs and immigration on an F1 student visa in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. February 3, 2017. Rahmati was originally turned away from a ﬂight to the U.S. following U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The immigration executive order signed by Trump a week ago temporarily halted the U.S. refugee program and imposed a 90-day suspension on people traveling from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump said the measures would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

Under President Barack Obama, Trump's predecessor, the United States added those seven countries as "countries of concern" under its visa waiver program, effectively toughening U.S. visa procedures for individuals who visited those places during the past ﬁve years.

Trump's executive order was at least in part informed by those restrictions. The new president, who took ofﬁce on Jan. 20, went further by temporarily barring passport holders from those seven countries.

The State Department ﬁrst issued the guidance about revoking the visas on Jan. 27, the day Trump signed his executive order, according to a memo ﬁled in a court case in Massachusetts.

But confusion about the roll out of the order sparked protests at airports across the country where people had been detained and led to a wave of lawsuits ﬁled by individuals, states and civil rights groups.

ALSO IN POLITICS
Trump aides attack agency that will analyze health bill's costs

To further clarify how the order should be applied, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) sent out a letter to all of its employees on Feb. 2, according to a copy of the memo seen by Reuters.

Several states jointly sue to block Trump's revised travel ban

The memo said the agency was continuing to process all applications and petitions for people inside the United States regardless of their country of origin. It also said all applications for permanent residency and adjustment of status can move forward.

USCIS said they could not discuss internal employee communications.

PHOTOS

The Department of Homeland Security had earlier clariﬁed, after some initial back-andforth, that the order would not apply to green card holders. Also people from the seven countries who hold dual citizenship are allowed to enter the United States on the passport of a non-restricted nation when eligible, according to Feb. 2 guidance posted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection's website.

(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton in Washington and Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Howard Goller and Lisa Shumaker)

Photos of the day

NEXT IN POLITICS

EXH. S TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN15I2EW

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 981042/4 206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JTLruRmp'sDtraovcelubamn heans tre6vo8ke-d160,0F00ilevisdas0fo3r /n1ow3/|1R7euterPs age 83 of 205

Treasury's Mnuchin to 'push hard' for U.S. interests at G20: ofﬁcial

Obama lawyers move fast to join ﬁght against Trump

WASHINGTON U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will be "pushing hard" to advance U.S. interests in his ﬁrst meeting with international counterparts this week, including reafﬁrming commitments to avoid competitive currency devaluations, a senior Treasury ofﬁcial said on Monday.Mnuchin, who will attend a meeting of ﬁnance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 major economies on Friday and Saturday in Germany, will also press countries to use all available too

WASHINGTON When Johnathan Smith resigned from the U.S. Justice Department on Inauguration Day, he looked forward to spending time with his infant son, but that plan unraveled a week later when President Donald Trump unveiled his explosive foreign travel ban.

MORE FROM REUTERS

SPONSORED CONTENT

Islamic State leader Baghdadi abandons

Baidu’s Robin Li calls for easier visas for

Mosul ﬁght to ﬁeld commanders, U.S. and… foreign tech workers South China Morning Post

Father of slain soldier who criticized Trump says travel rights reviewed

3 Ways to Help Improve Retirement Outcomes J.P. Morgan Funds
Before Applying For A Credit Card, Check If You Pre-Qualify Citi

Snap of Clinton reading Pence email headline goes viral
Mosul caught in 'strange and terrifying' battle as Islamic State foreign soldiers ﬁgh…

Sell Your Home 2x Faster and for 15% More
HomeLight
American Funds' Thoughts on Warren Bu韊ett's Indexing Views American Funds
Promoted by Dianomi

SPONSORED TOPICS
Promoted By

Ą

ą

Did You Know?
To teach him discipline, Donald Trump’s parents sent him to the New York Military Academy when he was 13, from which he
later graduated in 1964.

Trump administration sends judges to immigration detention centers: sources

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Promoted by Revcontent

Tiger Woods' Daughter Was a Cute Kid, But What She Looks Like Now is Insane
Hyperactivz

How to Fix Your Fatigue (do This Every Day)
Miracle Biotics

20 World War II Facts They Won't Tell You In History Class
Activly

Retire Overseas & Earlier A Cheater Will Always Cheat 12x More E顀icient Than

Than You Thought on Your EXH. S TOSMocAiaClLSEeOcuDri-tByABLeLneDfiEtC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

- Enter Anyone's Name
TruthFinder

Solar P3anels? Scientists

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN15I2EW

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 981043/4 206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JTLruRmp'sDtraovcelubamn heans tre6vo8ke-d160,0F00ilevisdas0fo3r /n1ow3/|1R7euterPs age 84 of 205

International Living

Livingtips

Follow Reuters:

Subscribe: Feeds | Newsletters | Podcasts | Apps

Reuters News Agency | Brand Attribution Guidelines | Careers
Reuters is the news and media division of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal ﬁnance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Learn more about Thomson Reuters products:

EIKON
Information, analytics and exclusive news on ﬁnancial markets delivered in an intuitive desktop and mobile interface

ELEKTRON
Everything you need to empower your workﬂow and enhance your enterprise data management

WORLD-CHECK
Screen for heightened risk individual and entities globally to help uncover hidden risks in business relationships and human networks

WESTLAW
Build the strongest argument relying on authoritative content, attorney-editor expertise, and industry deﬁning technology

ONESOURCE
The most comprehensive solution to manage all your complex and everexpanding tax and compliance needs

CHECKPOINT
The industry leader for online information for tax, accounting and ﬁnance professionals

All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. © 2017 Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Site Feedback Corrections Advertising Guidelines Cookies Terms of Use Privacy Policy

EXH. S TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-idUSKBN15I2EW

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 981044/4 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 85 of 205
EXHIBIT T

3/13/2017 Donald J. TrCumapsoen T2w:i1tte7r:-"cTvhe-0th0re1at3fr5om-JraLdRical IsDlamoiccutemrroerisnmt i6s 8ve-r1y reaFl, jiulestdloo0k3at/w1h3at/1is7happPenaingg ien E8u6ropoe fan2d0th5e Middle-East. Courts …

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

The threat from radical Islamic terrorism is very real, just look at what is happening in Europe and the Middle-East. Courts must act fast!

RETWEETS
33,170

LIKES
148,264

6:49 PM - 6 Feb 2017

[ 39K \ 33K

148K

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrumpJ@ waercleckaolmSDcoehKn$toaeflrdireoTlrrdiusKm$tsp@frNojAamObco©kNcusE2otc0uhTw1Hneo7ertfemrirTelipeewsldsCiftrt·eweoFnrmhteeebrcre7ouynoturiehsavyeoububsainnneessd,inbtuetreysotus.still

~

45th President of the United

Privacy policy

States of America

Cookies Ads info

 Joined March 2009

[ 10

\ 20

103

Tweet unavailable

Jack Schofield K$ @jackschofield · Feb 7

~

@carrot22221111 Most of the world despises @realDonaldTrump - sad. And at

least we're only the world's second most stupid country now ;-)

EXH. T TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/828797801630937089

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 87 of 205
EXHIBIT

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 88 of 205 (/)

AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations
By VIVIAN SALAMA (/journalist/vivian-salama) and ALICIA A. CALDWELL (/content/alicia-caldwell) Feb. 24, 2017 6:36 PM EST

More From AP
(h t t p : //b i g s t o ry.ap .o rg /art i c l e/752d d a7c 51d 447538b c 92199d 693d eef w at so n -h i t s-b ack-cri t i cs-p ro vo cat i ve-p h o t o -sh o o t )
Emma Watson hits back at critics of pr ovocative photo shoot
(h t t p : //b i g s t o ry.ap .o rg /art i c l e/752d d a7c 51d 447538b c 92199d 693d eef w at so n -h i t s-b ack-cri t i cs-p ro vo cat i ve-p h o t o -sh o o t ) (h t t p : //b i g s t o ry.ap .o rg /art i c l e/b 4e99b 54f 29e4650841ad d 9b 993b 9616 3-t een -g i rl s -k i d n ap p ed -s al v ad o ran -g an g -h o u s t o n )
Police: 3 teen girls kidnapped by Salvadoran gang in Houston

(MAILTO:?SUBJECT=AP BIG STORY: AP EXCLUSIVE: DH(3h-SttetpeRn:/-/EbgiPigrlsOst-okRirdyT.naaDpp.IopSregPd/a-UsrtaTilcvElaeSd/bo4Trea9Hn9-Rbg5aE4nAfg2T-9heoF4u6Rs5t0Oo8nM4)1aBddA9Nb9N9E3bD9616 NATIONS&BODY=FROM AP, %0D%0A %0D%0AAP EXCL(fUhactSttp-IcV:h//Ewecw:kwD-c.HlbaiiSgmssRto-pEryreP.aspOid.oRerngTt/saD-rdtIiecSfleePn/bUd8eT9rasE1-w2S1ircTe7tH2a7pR9s4E)bAcfTbfFccR92OeM9299d BANNED NATIONS. %0D%0A %0D%0AWASHINGTON (AP) — ANALYSTS AT THE HOMELAND SECURITY
DEPARTMENT'S INTELLIGENCE ARM FOUND INSUFFICIENTAEPVFIDAECNCTECTHHAETCCKIT:IZCElNaiSmOsFoSf EVEN MUSLIMMAJORITY COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN PRESIDENT DONALDpTrReUsMidPe'nStT'sRdAeVfEeLndBeArNs PoOnSwEirAeTtaEpRsROR THREAT

THE UNITED STATES. %0D%0A

%0D%0AHTTP://BIGSTORY.AP.ORG/ARTICLE/39F1F8E4CEED4A30A4570F693291C866/DHS-INTEL-REPORT-

DISPUTES-THREAT-POSED-TRAVEL-BAN-NATIONS)

(h t t p : //w w w .b i g st o ry.ap .o rg /art i cl e/b 89a121c72794b cf b f cc92e9299d f act -ch eck-cl ai m s-p resi d en t s-d ef en d ers-w i ret ap s) (h t t p : //b i g s t o ry.ap .o rg /art i c l e/4f b b 7b b f c 42a46029d 7239223f 72f d 1b / t ru m p -s ay s -s m al l -f i rm s -n eed -ac c es s -c ap i t al )

1 photo

The Latest: Pence says Flynn story affirms Trump decision

EXH. U TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

(ht tru

tmpNp: /O-/sbRai gTysHst-Wos mrEyS.aaTlpl -I.fMoi rrMmgI/sGa-6rRnt1ieAc5eNl eSdT/e-4acRfcobIcGnbedH7sbATsbvS-ecf Pc.a,4RpS2iOttaeaJ4.lE)64C002T09d

7239223f

72f d 1b

/

(http :/ /popup.tabool a.com/ en/?temp l ate=col or box&utm_so ur ce=asso ci atedpr ess-ap &utm_med i um=r efer r al &utm_co ntent=or gani c-th umbSnaeial stt-lrer,:RWi gAht9R8Aa1di l0vT4ehrutmi sbenmaiel sn:)t

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 89 of 205

Los Angeles Times

Most Popular





(http://binaryapi.ap.org/8827ade19cc74bd8830bfa20fffc5101/460x. jpg)

Soaking up the local color at Holi in India

FILE ­ In this June 5, 2015 file photo, a view of the Homeland Security Department headquarters in... Read more

Read Post

i
WASHINGTON (AP) — Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim­ majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism­ related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Trump cited terrorism concerns as the primary reason

he signed the sweeping temporary travel ban in late

January, which also halted the U.S. refugee program.

A federal judge in Washington state blocked the

government from carrying out the order earlier this

month. Trump said Friday a new edict would be

announced soon. The administration has been working

on a new version that could withstand legal

challenges.

EXH. U TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Adv ert is ement
Today's Health New s (http:/ / w w w .healthgrades.com / ) (http://healthguides.healthgrades.com/advancesivna-lavoer?Wtdiciad-s=ytste1nt1oo_stirsrs/esw4aa&t ycasb-f=taoai-lptir)negata-ao-rfat iiclinvga-al voertic-
How your doctor proposes to treat a failing aortic valve depends on how ...
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Homeland SeCcausriety2s:1p7o-kcevs-w00o1m3a5n-JGLRillianDoCchurmisteennts6e8n-1 FileTdre0n3d/i1n3g/1N7owPage 90 of 205
(http:/ / w w w .healthgrades.com / )
on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but

said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.
"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing

What thumbsucking does to kids' teeth
(http://www.healthgrades.com/rightcare/childrens-health/whatthumbsucking-can-do-to-childrensteeth?cid=t11_rss5&cb=ap)

was commentary from a single intelligence source

versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

8 health tips for women of any age
(http://www.healthgrades.com/rightcare/womens-health/8-health-tips-forwomen-of-any-age? cid=t11_rss5&cb=ap)

The Homeland Security report is based on unclassified information from Justice Department press releases on terrorism­related convictions and attackers killed in the act, State Department visa statistics, the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment from the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.

The three­page report challenges Trump's core claims. It said that of 82 people the government determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to carry out or try to carry out an attack in the United States, just over half were U.S. citizens born in the United States. The others were from 26 countries, led by Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Of these, only Somalia and Iraq were among the seven nations included in the ban.

Of the other five nations, one person each from Iran, Sudan and Yemen was also involved in those terrorism cases, but none from Syria. It did not say if any were Libyan.

The report also found that terrorist organizations in Iran, Libya, Somalia and Sudan are regionally focused, while groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen do pose a threat to the U.S.

The seven countries were included in a law President

Barack Obama signed in 2015 that updated visa

requirements for foreigners who had traveled to those

countrieECXassH.e.

U TO MACLEOD-BALL No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

DEC.

3

Why seafood is good for your heart
(http://www.healthgrades.com/rightcare/heart-health/why-seafood-is-goodfor-your-heart?cid=t11_rss5&cb=ap)
10 warning signs of Alzheimer's
(http://www.healthgrades.com/rightcare/alzheimers-disease/10-warningsigns-of-alzheimers-disease? cid=t11_rss5&cb=ap)
Finding lupus pain relief
(http://www.healthgrades.com/rightcare/lupus/lupus-pain-relief-is-withinreach?cid=t11_rss5&cb=ap)

MORE HEALTH STORIES

FIND LOCAL DOCTORS

(HTTP:/ /HEALTHGUIDES.HEALTHGR(AHDTETSP.:/C/OWMW/WTO.HPE- ALTHGRADES.COM?
TOPICS

HEALTH-STORIES/?

CID=T11_DRS )

Barack Obama (/tags/barack-obama),

Middle East (/tags/middle-east),

YemCIeD=nT1(1/_tMaOgRsE&/yCBe=mAP)en),

War and unrest (/tags/war-and-unrest),

Government regulations (/tags/government-regula

Somalia (/tags/somalia),

East Africa (/tags/east-africa),

Religious issues (/tags/religious-issues),

Religion (/tags/religion),

Travel (/tags/travel),

National governments (/tags/national-government

Iraq (/tags/iraq), Iran (/tags/iran),

U.S. Department of State (/tags/us-department-sta

North Africa (/tags/north-africa),

Religion and politics (/tags/religion-and-politics)

SNyartNiiaoOnR(/aTtHal WgcoEsS/usTrytIMrsiMa(I/)Gt,6aR1gA5NsST/encRSaoIGnetdaiHotAtTlnevS,eaWP.,lR-SAcOte9oJ.8Eu41C00rT04ts),

Courts (/tags/courts),

206-957-8611

Christensen sCaaidseth2e:1c7o-ucnvt-r0ie0s13w5e-rJeLRalsoDsoecluemctendti6n8-1

FilCeodu0r3ts/1(3/t/a1g7s/cPoaugrtes)9,1 of 205 Judiciary (/tags/judiciary),

part because they lacked the ability to properly vet

Military and defense (/tags/military-and-defense)

their citizens and don't cooperate with U.S. efforts to screen people hoping to come to the U.S.

Sudan (/tags/sudan), Terrorism (/tags/terrorism), National security (/tags/national-security),

Travel laws and regulations (/tags/travel-laws-and-

The report was prepared as part of an internal review

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (/tags/us-d

Trump requested after his executive order was blocked European Mass Migration Crisis (/tags/european-m

by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was drafted by staff of the Homeland Security Department's

Adv ert is ement

Intelligence and Analysis branch at the direction of its

acting leader, David Glawe.

White House spokesman Michael Short said this was not the full report that Trump had requested. He said he believes "the intel community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources, not just open sources, and which is driven by data, not politics."

The intelligence document was circulated beyond Homeland Security.

The draft document reflects the tensions between the president's political appointees and the civil servants tasked with carrying out Trump's ambitious and aggressive agenda. Trump has repeatedly complained about leaks meant to undercut his policies and suggested he does not trust holdovers from the Obama administration.

Trump originally said the ban was necessary to overhaul the vetting system for both refugees and would­be foreign visitors, saying that terrorists may try to exploit weaknesses to gain access to the United States. The order sparked chaos, outrage and widespread protests, with travelers detained at airports and panicked families searching for relatives.

But several courts quickly intervened and the 9th Circuit ultimately upheld a ruling blocking the ban and challenged the administration's claim that it was motivated by terrorism fears.

Trump's ban temporarily barred citizens from the
seven cEoXHu.nUtrTiOesMAfCroLEmODc-oBAmLLinDgECt.o the United States f4or three mCoasnetNhos..2:T17h-cev-o00r1d3e5-rJLaRlso temporarily shut down

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

the U.S. refugCeaesepr2o:g1r7a-mcvf-o0r0f1o3u5r-mJLoRnthDsoacnudment 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 92 of 205 indefinitely banned anyone from Syria.
A senior administration official told the AP on Sunday that a draft of the revised order will target those same seven countries. The official would not be named discussing the document before it is made public.
In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee Friday, Trump reiterated his claims on terrorism.
"We are going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country," Trump said.
He said he singled out the seven countries because they had already been deemed a security concern by the Obama administration.
___
Intelligence document available at http://apne.ws/2lSKNUo (http://apne.ws/2lSKNUo)
___
Contact Alicia A. Caldwell on Twitter at www .twitter .com/acaldwellap (http://www .twitter .com/acaldwellap) and Vivian Salama at www .twitter .com/vmsalama (http://www .twitter .com/vmsalama) or https://www .ap.org/tips (https://www.ap.org/tips)
Discuss this story on Twitter or Facebook
@AP on Twitter (https://twitter .com/AP)

AP on Facebook (https://www .facebook.com/APNews/)

EXH. U TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 93 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001F3u5ll -TJraLnRscriptDanodcVuidemo:eTrnumt 6p N8e-w1s CFonifleerednce0-3T/h1e3N/e1w7YorkPTaimgees 94 of 205

https://nyti.ms/2lcbosY

POLITICS
Full Transcript and Video: Trump News Conference
FEB. 16, 2017
resident Trump on Thursda announced his new nominee for labor secretar , le ander costa, during a news conference at the White ouse. Following is a transcript of that event, as prepared b the Federal News ervice.
For more coverage, read our live analysis.
TRUMP: Thank you very much.
I just wanted to begin by mentioning that the nominee for secretary of the Department of Labor will be Mr. Alex Acosta. He has a law degree from Harvard Law School, was a great student; former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito. And he has had a tremendous career. He’s a member and has been a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and has been through Senate confirmation three times, confirmed; did very, very well.
And so Alex, I’ve wished him the best. We just spoke. And he’s going to be — I think he’ll be a tremendous secretary of labor.
And also as you probably heard just a little while ago, Mick Mulvaney, former congressman, has just been approved weeks late, I have to say that, weeks, weeks late, Office of Management and Budget. And he will be I think a fantastic addition.
Paul Singer just left. As you know, Paul was very much involved with the anti­Trump or as they say, “never Trump.” And Paul just left and he’s given us his total support.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

1/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001F3u5ll -TJraLnRscriptDanodcVuidemo:eTrnumt 6p N8e-w1s CFonifleerednce0-3T/h1e3N/e1w7YorkPTaimgees 95 of 205

And it’s all about unification. We’re unifying the party and hopefully we’re going to be able to unify the country. It’s very important to me. I’ve been talking about that for a long time. It’s very, very important to me.
So I want to thank Paul Singer for being here and for coming up to the office. He was a very strong opponent, and now he’s a very strong ally. And I appreciate that.
I think I’ll say a few words, and then we’ll take some questions. And I had this time. We’ve been negotiating a lot of different transactions to save money on contracts that were terrible, including airplane contracts that were out of control and late and terrible; just absolutely catastrophic in terms of what was happening. And we’ve done some really good work. We’re very proud of that.
And then right after that, you prepare yourselves, we’ll do some questions, unless you have enough questions. That’s always a possibility.
I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration. We have made incredible progress. I don’t think there’s ever been a president elected who in this short period of time has done what we’ve done.
A new Rasmussen poll, in fact — because the people get it — much of the media doesn’t get it. They actually get it, but they don’t write it. Let’s put it that way. But a new Rasmussen poll just came out just a very short while ago, and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up. The stock market has hit record numbers, as you know. And there has been a tremendous surge of optimism in the business world, which is — to me means something much different than it used to. It used to mean, “Oh, that’s good.” Now it means, “That’s good for jobs.” Very different.
Plants and factories are already starting to move back into the United States, and big league — Ford, General Motors, so many of them. I’m making this presentation directly to the American people, with the media present, which is an honor to have you. This morning, because many of our nation’s reporters and folks will not tell you the truth, and will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve. And I hope going forward we can be a little bit — a

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

2/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001F3u5ll -TJraLnRscriptDanodcVuidemo:eTrnumt 6p N8e-w1s CFonifleerednce0-3T/h1e3N/e1w7YorkPTaimgees 96 of 205

little bit different, and maybe get along a little bit better, if that’s possible. Maybe it’s not, and that’s OK, too.
TRUMP: Unfortunately, much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks not for the people, but for the special interests and for those profiting off a very, very obviously broken system. The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.
I ran for president to present the citizens of our country. I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities well. I am talking — and really talking on this very entrenched power structure, and what we’re doing is we’re talking about the power structure; we’re talking about its entrenchment. As a result, the media is going through what they have to go through too often times distort — not all the time — and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say — they’re honest and fantastic.
But much of it is not a — the distortion — and we’ll talk about it, you’ll be able to ask me questions about it. But we’re not going to let it happen, because I’m here again, to take my message straight to the people. As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy. To be honest, I inherited a mess. It’s a mess. At home and abroad, a mess. Jobs are pouring out of the country; you see what’s going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places, low pay, low wages, mass instability overseas, no matter where you look. The Middle East is a disaster. North Korea — we’ll take care of it folks; we’re going to take care of it all. I just want to let you know, I inherited a mess.
Beginning on day one, our administration went to work to tackle these challenges. On foreign affairs, we’ve already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders, much of it you’ve covered, to move forward towards stability, security and peace in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many. We have had great conversations with the United Kingdom, and meetings. Israel,

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

3/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001F3u5ll -TJraLnRscriptDanodcVuidemo:eTrnumt 6p N8e-w1s CFonifleerednce0-3T/h1e3N/e1w7YorkPTaimgees 97 of 205

Mexico, Japan, China and Canada, really, really productive conversations. I would say far more productive than you would understand.
We’ve even developed a new council with Canada to promote women’s business leaders and entrepreneurs. It’s very important to me, very important to my daughter Ivanka. I have directed our defense community headed by our great general, now Secretary Mattis. He’s over there now working very hard to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world. It used to be a small group, now it’s in large sections of the world.
They’ve spread like cancer. ISIS has spread like cancer — another mess I inherited. And we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran, whose totally taken advantage of our previous administration, and they’re the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, and we’re not going to stop until that problem is properly solved. And it’s not properly solved now, it’s one of the worst agreements I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody. I’ve ordered plan to begin building for the massive rebuilding of the United States military. Had great support from the Senate, I’ve had great from Congress, generally.
We’ve pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military, and I will tell you that is my — I would be so happy if we never had to use it. But our country will never have had a military like the military we’re about to build and rebuild. We have the greatest people on earth in our military, but they don’t have the right equipment and their equipment is old. I used it; I talked about it at every stop. Depleted, it’s depleted — it won’t be depleted for long. And I think one of the reason I’m standing here instead of other people is that frankly, I talked about we have to have a strong military.
We have to have a strong law enforcement also. So we do not go abroad in the search of war, we really are searching for peace, but its peace through strength. At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a scale not seen in many, many years. In each of these actions, I’m keeping my promises to the American people. These are campaign promises. Some people are so surprised that we’re having strong borders.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

4/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001F3u5ll -TJraLnRscriptDanodcVuidemo:eTrnumt 6p N8e-w1s CFonifleerednce0-3T/h1e3N/e1w7YorkPTaimgees 98 of 205

Well, that’s what I’ve been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They’re so surprised, oh, he having strong borders, well that’s what I’ve been talking about to the press and to everybody else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I’m doing probably aren’t popular but they’re necessary for security and for other reasons.
And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests which is more important to many politicians. I’m here following through on what I pledged to do. That’s all I’m doing. I put it out before the American people, got 306 Electoral College votes. I wasn’t supposed to get 222. They said there’s no way to get 222, 230’s impossible.
270 which you need, that was laughable. We got 306 because people came out and voted like they’ve never seen before so that’s the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media’s trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they’re not happy about it for whatever reason.
And — but a lot of people are happy about it. In fact, I’ll be in Melbourne, Florida five o’clock on Saturday and I heard — just heard that the crowds are massive that want to be there. I turn on the T.V., open the newspapers and I see stories of chaos. Chaos. Yet it is the exact opposite. This administration is running like a fine­tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my cabinet approved.
And they’re outstanding people like Senator Dan Coats who’s there, one of the most respected men of the Senate. He can’t get approved. How do you not approve him? He’s been a colleague — highly respected. Brilliant guy, great guy, everybody knows it. We’re waiting for approval. So we have a wonderful group of people that’s working very hard, that’s being very much misrepresented about and we can’t let that happen.
So, if the Democrats who have — all you have to do is look at where they are right now. The only thing they can do is delay because they screwed things up royally, believe me. Let me list to you some of the things that we’ve done in just a

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

5/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001F3u5ll -TJraLnRscriptDanodcVuidemo:eTrnumt 6p N8e-w1s CFonifleerednce0-3T/h1e3N/e1w7YorkPTaimgees 99 of 205

short period of time. I just got here. And I got here with no cabinet. Again, each of these actions is a promise I made to the American people.
I’ll go over just some of them and we have a lot happening next week and in the weeks — in the weeks coming. We’ve withdrawn from the job­killing disaster known as Trans Pacific Partnership. We’re going to make trade deals but we’re going to have one on one deals, bilateral. We’re going to have one on one deals.
We’ve directed the elimination of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited approval of the permits needed for America and American infrastructure and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get disapproved for a factory. They go in for a permit, it’s many, many years. And then at the end of the process — they spend 10s of millions of dollars on nonsense and at the end of the process, they get rejected.
Now, they may be rejected with me but it’s going to be a quick rejection. Not going to take years. But mostly it’s going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and we want factories built and we want the jobs. We don’t want the jobs going to other countries. We’ve imposed a hiring freeze on nonessential federal workers. We’ve imposed a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations.
We’ve issued a game­changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. Makes sense. Nobody’s ever seen regulations like we have. You go to other countries and you look at indexes (ph) they have and you say “let me see your regulations” and they’re fraction, just a tiny fraction of what we have. And I want regulations because I want safety, I want environmental — all environmental situations to be taken properly care of. It’s very important to me. But you don’t need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing.
We’ve stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence. We’ve directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation — take a look at Chicago and others, taking place right now in our inner cities. Horrible.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

6/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 100 of 205

We’ve ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States with drugs. We’re becoming a drug infested nation. Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars. We are not going to let it happen any longer.
We’ve undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe. And are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border, met with general — now Secretary Kelly yesterday and we’re starting that process. And the wall is going to be a great wall and it’s going to be a wall negotiated by me. The price is going to come down just like it has on everything else I’ve negotiated for the government. And we are going to have a wall that works, not gonna have a wall like they have now which is either nonexistent or a joke.
We’ve ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that harbor criminal aliens, and we have ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border. No more release. No matter who you are, release. We have begun a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers and others who pose a threat to public safety. We are saving American lives every single day.
The court system has not made it easy for us. And are even creating a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, which there are many. We have taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country. No parts are necessary and constitutional actions were blocked by judges, in my opinion, incorrect, and unsafe ruling. Our administration is working night and day to keep you safe, including reporters safe. And is vigorously defending this lawful order.
I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country. I keep my campaign promises, and our citizens will be very happy when they see the result. They already are, I can tell you that. Extreme vetting will be put in place and it already is in place in many places.
In fact, we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number. I have heard 80

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

7/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 101 of 205

percent, I find that hard to believe, that is just a number I heard, that they are overturned 80 percent of the time. I think that circuit is — that circuit is in chaos and that circuit is frankly in turmoil. But we are appealing that, and we are going further.
We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country. So we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that, at the same time we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people. That will be done sometime next week, toward the beginning or middle at the latest part. We have also taken steps to begin construction of the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access Pipelines. Thousands and thousands of jobs, and put new buy American measures in place to require American steel for American pipelines. In other words, they build a pipeline in this country, and we use the powers of government to make that pipeline happen, we want them to use American steel. And they are willing to do that, but nobody ever asked before I came along. Even this order was drawn and they didn’t say that.
TRUMP: And I’m reading the order, I’m saying, why aren’t we using American steel? And they said, that’s a good idea, we put it in. To drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, D.C., I’ve started by imposing a five­year lobbying ban on White House officials and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.
We’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare. Obamacare is a disaster, folks. It is’s disaster. I know you can say, oh, Obamacare. I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they are not the Republican people our that representatives are representing.
So we’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare, and are deep in the midst of negotiations on a very historic tax reform to bring our jobs back, to bring our jobs back to this country. Big league. It’s already happening. But big league.
I’ve also worked to install a cabinet over the delays and obstruction of Senate Democrats. You’ve seen what they’ve done over the last long number of years. That will be one of the great cabinets ever assembled in American history.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

8/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 102 of 205

You look at Rex Tillerson. He’s out there negotiating right now. General Mattis I mentioned before, General Kelly. We have great, great people. Mick is with us now. We have great people.
Among their responsibilities will be ending the bleeding of jobs from our country and negotiating fair trade deals for our citizens.
Now look, fair trade. Not free, fair. If a country is taking advantage of us, not going to let that happen anymore. Every country takes advantage of us almost. I may be able to find a couple that don’t. But for the most part, that would be a very tough job for me to do.
Jobs have already started to surge. Since my election, Ford announced it will abandon its plans to build a new factory in Mexico, and will instead invest $700 million in Michigan, creating many, many jobs.
Fiat Chrysler announced it will invest $1 billion in Ohio and Michigan, creating 2,000 new American jobs. They were with me a week ago. You know you were here.
General Motors likewise committed to invest billions of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave. And if I didn’t get elected, believe me, they would have left. And these jobs and these things that I’m announcing would never have come here.
Intel just announced that it will move ahead with a new plant in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with. And that will result in at least 10,000 American jobs.
Walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives. There will be many, many more, many more, these are a few that we’re naming.
Other countries have been taking advantage of us for decades — decades, and decades, and decades, folks. And we’re not going to let that happen anymore. Not going to let it happen.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Seattle, WA 98104

9/44

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 103 of 205

And one more thing, I have kept my promise to the American people by nominating a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who is from my list of 20, and who will be a true defender of our laws and our Constitution, highly respected, should get the votes from the Democrats. You may not see that. But he’ll get there one way or the other. But he should get there the old­ fashioned way, and he should get those votes.
This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country. Again, I say it. There has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time. And we have not even started the big work yet. That starts early next week.
Some very big things are going to be announced next week. So we are just getting started. We will be giving a speech, as I said, in Melbourne, Florida, at 5:00 p.m. I hope to see you there.
And with that, I just say, God bless America, and let’s take some questions.
Mara (ph), Mara (ph), go ahead. You were cut off pretty violently at our last news conference.
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE)
TRUMP: Mike Flynn is a fine person, and I asked for his resignation. He respectfully gave it. He is a man who there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence, who is with us today. And I was not happy with the way that information was given.
He didn’t have to do that, because what he did wasn’t wrong — what he did in terms of the information he saw. What was wrong was the way that other people, including yourselves in this room, were given that information, because that was classified information that was given illegally. That’s the real problem.
And, you know, you can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

10

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

10/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 104 of 205

supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren’t in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.
It’s all fake news. It’s all fake news. The nice thing is, I see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal — I think it’s very important — the illegal, giving out classified information. It was — and let me just tell you, it was given out like so much.
I’ll give you an example. I called, as you know, Mexico. It was a very, very confidential, classified call. But I called Mexico. And in calling Mexico, I figured, oh, well that’s — I spoke to the president of Mexico; I had a good call. All of a sudden, it’s out there for the world to see. It’s supposed to be secret. It’s supposed to be either confidential or classified, in that case.
Same thing with Australia. All of a sudden, people are finding out exactly what took place. The same thing happened with respect to General Flynn. Everybody saw this. And I’m saying — the first thing I thought of when I heard about it is: How does the press get this information that’s classified? How do they do it?
You know why? Because it’s an illegal process and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves, really ashamed.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE)
TRUMP: Because when I looked at the information, I said, “I don’t think he did anything wrong; if anything, he did something right.” He was coming into office. He looked at the information. He said, “Huh, that’s fine.” That’s what they’re supposed to do. They’re supposed to — he didn’t just call Russia. He called and spoke to both ways, I think there were 30­some­odd countries. He’s doing the job.
You know, he was doing his job. The thing is, he didn’t tell our vice president properly, and then he said he didn’t remember. So either way, it wasn’t very satisfactory to me. And I have somebody that I think will be outstanding for the position. And that also helps, I think, in the making of my decision.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

11/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 105 of 205

But he didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts. And then he didn’t remember. And that just wasn’t acceptable to me.
Yes?
QUESTION: (inaudible) clarification here. During your campaign, did anyone from your team (inaudible) Russian government or Russian intelligence? And if so, what was the nature of those conversations (inaudible)? TRUMP: The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front­page story yesterday. And it was very much discredited, as you know. It was — it’s a joke. And the people mentioned in the story, I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia. They weren’t even a part, really — I mean, they were such a minor part. They — I hadn’t spoken to them.
I think the one person — I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. And he actually said he was a very low­level member of I think a committee for a short period of time. I don’t think I ever met him. Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him. I didn’t talk to him ever. And he thought it was a joke.
The other person said he never spoke to Russia; never received a call. Look at his phone records, et cetera, et cetera. And the other person, people knew that he represented various countries, but I don’t think he represented Russia, but knew that he represented various countries. That’s what he does. I mean, people know that.
That’s Mr. Manafort, who’s — by the way, who’s by the way a respected man. He’s a respected man. But I think he represented the Ukraine or Ukraine government or somebody, but everybody — people knew that. Everybody knew that.
So, these people — and he said that he has absolutely nothing to do and never has with Russia. And he said that very forcefully. I saw his statement. He said it very forcefully. Most of the papers don’t print it because that’s not good for their stories.
TRUMP: So the three people that they talked about all totally deny it. And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

12

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

12/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 106 of 205

I don’t have any deals in Russia. President Putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election.
He then, called me up extremely nicely to congratulate me on the inauguration, which was terrific. But so did many other leaders, almost all other leaders from almost all of the country. So that’s the extent.
Russia is fake news. Russia — this is fake news put out by the media. The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they’re there, because we have our new people going in place, right now.
As you know, Mike Pompeo has — has now taken control of the CIA, James Comey at FBI, Dan Coats is waiting to be approved, I mean he is a senator and a highly respected one and he’s still waiting to be approved. But our new people are going in.
And just while you’re at it, because you mentioned this, Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Time’s story, yesterday. And it talked about — these are (ph) front page.
So director of national intelligence just put out, acting a statement, any suggestion that the United States intelligence community, this was just given to us, is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not true.
So they took this front page story out of The Wall Street Journal top and they just wrote the story that its not true. And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth that I guess I have all my life but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than frankly, the political media. I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest.
But I will say that, I never get phone calls from the media. How did they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal without asking me or how did they write a story in The New York Times, put it on front page?
That was like the story they wrote about the women and me, front page, big massive story. And it was nasty and then they called, they said we never said that, we

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

13

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

13/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 107 of 205

like Mr. Trump. They called up my office, we like Mr. Trump, we never said that.

And it was totally — they totally misrepresented those very wonderful women, I have to tell you, totally misrepresented. I said give us the retraction. They never gave us a retraction and frankly, I then went on to other things.
OK, go ahead.
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE) said today that you have big intellectual margins (inaudible) 300 or more (ph), or 350 (ph) electoral (ph) votes. President Obama about 365 (OFF­MIKE).
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Yeah.
QUESTION: Obama (OFF­MIKE) 426 on (OFF­MIKE). So why should Americans...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: ...I’m skipping that information, I don’t know, I was just given (ph) we had a very, very big margin.
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE) why should Americans trust you (OFF­MIKE) the information (OFF­MIKE)?
TRUMP: Well, I don’t know, I was given that information. I was given — I actually, I’ve seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? OK thank you, that’s...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Go ahead Sir, yes?
QUESTION: Can you tell us in determining that Lieutenant General Flynn did — whether there was no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence was weighed? Did you ask for transcripts of these telephone intercepts with Russian officials, particularly the Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, who he was communicating with?

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

14

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

14/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 108 of 205

What— what evidence did you weigh to determine that there was no wrongdoing? Further to that, Sir, you said on a couple of locations this morning, you are going to aggressively pursue the source of these leaks.
TRUMP: We are.
QUESTION: Can we ask what you’re going to do and also, we’ve heard about a — a review of the intelligence community headed up by Steven Feinberg, what can you tell us about that?
TRUMP: Well, first of all about that, we now have Dan Coats, hopefully soon, Mike Pompeo and James Comey and they’re in position so I hope that we’ll be able to straighten that out without using anybody else.
The gentleman you mentioned is a very talented man, very successful man and he’s offered his services and you know, it’s something we may take advantage of. But I don’t think we’re need that at all because of the fact that you know, I think that we are gonna be able to straighten it out very easily on its own.
As far as the general’s concerned, when I first heard about it, I said huh, that doesn’t sound wrong. My counsel came, Don McGahn, White House Counsel, and he told me and I asked him, he can speak very well for himself. He said he doesn’t think anything is wrong, you know, really didn’t think.
It was really, what happened after that but he didn’t think anything was done wrong. I didn’t either because I waited a period of time and I started to think about it, I said “well I don’t see” — to me, he was doing the job.
The information was provided by — who I don’t know, Sally Yates. And I was a little surprised because I said “doesn’t sound like he did anything wrong there.” But he did something wrong with respect to the vice president and I thought that was not acceptable. As far as — as far as the actual making the call, fact I’ve watched various programs and I’ve read various articles where he was just doing his job.
That was very normal. You know, first everybody got excited because they thought he did something wrong. After they thought about it, it turned out he was

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

15

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

15/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 109 of 205

just doing his job. So — and I do. And by the way, with all of that being said, I do think he’s a fine man.
QUESTION: Sir, if I could, on the leaks — on the leaks, sir...
TRUMP: ...Go ahead. Finish off then I’ll get you.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. What will you do on the leaks? You’ve said twice today...
TRUMP: ...Yes, we’re looking at them very — very, very serious. I’ve gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies and we’re — I’ve actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks. Those are criminal leaks. They’re put out by people either in agencies — I think you’ll see it stopping because now we have our people in. You know, again, we don’t have our people in because we can’t get them approved by the Senate.
We just had Jeff Sessions approved. Injustice, as an example (ph). So, we are looking into that very seriously. It’s a criminal act. You know what I say, when I — when I was called out on Mexico, I was shocked because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment — when I was called out on Mexico, I was — honestly, I was really, really surprised.
But I said “you know, it doesn’t make sense. That won’t happen” but that wasn’t that important a call, it was fine, I could show it to the world and he could show it to the world, the president who’s a very fine man, by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said “that’s terrible that it was leaked” but it wasn’t that important. But then I said to myself “what happens when I’m dealing with the problem of North Korea?”
What happens when I’m dealing with the problems in the Middle East? Are you folks going to be reporting all of that very, very confidential information, very important, very — you know, I mean at the highest level? Are you going to be reporting about that too? So, I don’t want classified information getting out to the public and in a way that was almost a test.
So I’m dealing with Mexico, I’m dealing with Argentina, we were dealing on this case with Mike Flynn. All this information gets put into the “Washington Post” and

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

16

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

16/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 110 of 205

gets put into the “New York Times” and I’m saying “what’s going to happen when I’m dealing on the Middle East? What’s going to happen when I’m dealing with really, really important subjects like North Korea?
We got to stop it. That’s why it’s a criminal penalty.
QUESTION: I just want to get you to clarify this very important point. Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign? And on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks?
TRUMP: Well the leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do — and I hope we can correct it. Because there’s nobody I have more respect for — well, maybe a little bit but the reporters, good reporters.
It’s very important to me and especially in this position. It’s very important. I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.
I don’t watch it any more because it’s very good — he’s saying no. It’s OK, Jim (ph). It’s OK, Jim (ph), you’ll have your chance. But I watch others too. You’re not the only one so don’t feel badly. But I think it should be straight. I think it should be — I think it would be frankly more interesting. I know how good everybody’s ratings are right now but I think that actually — I think that’d actually be better.
People — I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress. I think that’s right. I don’t know, Peter (ph), is that one right? Because you know I think they have lower — I heard lower than Congress. But honestly, the public would appreciate it, I’d appreciate it — again, I don’t mind bad stories when it’s true but we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

17

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

17/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 111 of 205

TRUMP: I think we’re setting a record or close to a record in the time of approval of a cabinet. I mean, the numbers are crazy. When I’m looking, some of them had them approved immediately.
I’m going forever and I still have a lot of people that we’re waiting for. And that’s all they’re doing, is delaying. And you look at Schumer and the mess that he’s got over there and they have nothing going. The only thing they can do is delay. And, you know, I think that they’d be better served by, you know, approving and making sure that they’re happy and everybody’s good.
And sometimes — I mean, I know President Obama lost three or four, and you lose them on the way, and that’s OK. That’s fine. But I think it would — I think they would be much better served, John, if they just went through the process quickly. This is pure delay tactics.
And they say it, and everybody understands it. Yeah, go ahead, Jimmy.
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE)
TRUMP: Well, I had nothing to do with it. I have nothing to do with Russia. I told you, I have no deals there, I have no anything. Now, when WikiLeaks, which I had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give, they’re not giving classified information. They’re giving stuff — what was said at an office about Hillary cheating on the debates.
Which, by the way, nobody mentions. Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates. Can you imagine — seriously — can you imagine if I received the questions? It would be the electric chair. OK, he should be put in the electric — you would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, OK. Maybe not you John. Yes? We’ll do you next Jim, I do you next(ph).
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE) clarify —
TRUMP: Yes, yes, sure
QUESTION: Did you direct Mike Flynn to discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador —

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

18

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

18/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 112 of 205

TRUMP: No, I didn’t.
QUESTION: — prior to your — TRUMP: No, I didn’t.
QUESTION: — inauguration.
TRUMP: No, I didn’t.
QUESTION: And then fired him —
TRUMP: Excuse me.
QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE)
TRUMP: No, I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence. Very simple. Mike was doing his job. He was calling countries and his counterparts. So, it certainly would have been OK with me if he did it. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.
I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him because that’s his job. And it came out that way — and in all fairness, I watched Dr. Charles Krauthammer the other night say he was doing his job and I agreed with him. And since then, I’ve watched many other people say that.
No, I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him if he didn’t do it. OK? Jim?
QUESTION: Thank you very much, and just for the record, we don’t hate you. I don’t hate you.
TRUMP: OK.
QUESTION: So, pass that along —
TRUMP: Ask — ask Jeff Zucker how he got his job. OK?
QUESTION: If I may follow up on some of the questions that have taken place so far here, sir —

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

19

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

19/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 113 of 205

TRUMP: Well, that’s — well, you know, we do have other people. You do have other people and your ratings aren’t as good as some of the other people that are waiting.
QUESTION: It’s pretty good right now, actually.
TRUMP: OK, go ahead, John.
QUESTION: If I may ask, sir, you said earlier that WikiLeaks was revealing information about the Hillary Clinton campaign during the election cycle. You welcomed that. At one time —
TRUMP: I was OK with it.
QUESTION: — you said — you said that you loved WikiLeaks. At another campaign press conference you called on the Russians to find the missing 30,000 e­ mails. I’m wondering, sir, if you — TRUMP: Well, she was actually missing 33 and then that got extended with a pile after that.
QUESTION: Then(ph), your(ph) numbers(ph) were off too.
TRUMP: No — no, but I did say 30. But it was actually higher than that.
QUESTION: If — if I may ask you, sir, it — it sounds as though you do not have much credibility here when it comes to leaking if that is something that you encouraged during(ph) the campaign —
TRUMP: OK, fair question. Ready?
QUESTION: Well, if I may ask you that —
TRUMP: No — no, but let me do one at a time.
QUESTION: If I may as a follow up?
TRUMP: Do you mind?
QUESTION: Yes, sir.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

20

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

20/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 114 of 205

TRUMP: All right. So, in one case, you’re talking about highly classified information. In the other case, you’re talking about John Podesta saying bad things about the boss. I will say this, if John Podesta said that about me and he was working for me, I would have fired him so fast your head would have spun.
He said terrible things about her. But it wasn’t classified information. But in one case, you’re talking about classified — regardless, if you look at the RNC, we had a very strong — at my suggestion — and I give Reince great credit for this — at my suggestion, because I know something about this world, I said I want a very strong defensive mechanism.
I don’t want to be hacked. And we did that. And you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. The DNC did not do that. And if they did it, they could not have been hacked. But they were hacked and terrible things came in. And, you know, the only thing that I do think is unfair is some of the things were so — they were — when I heard some of those things I picked up the papers the next morning and said, oh, this is going to be front page, it wasn’t even in the papers.
Again, if I had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers. I would have been headline in every newspaper. I mean, think of it. They gave her the questions to a debate and she — and she should have reported herself.
Why did Hillary Clinton announce that, “I’m sorry, but I have been given the questions to a debate or a town hall, and I feel that it’s inappropriate, and I want to turn in CNN for not doing a good job.” QUESTION: And if I may follow up on that, just something that Jonathan Karl (ph) was asking you about. You said that the leaks are real, but the news is fake. I guess I don’t understand. It seems that there’s a disconnect there. If the information coming from those leaks is real, then how can the stories be fake?
TRUMP: The reporting is fake. Look, look...
(CROSSTALK)

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

21

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

21/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 115 of 205

TRUMP: You know what it is? Here’s the thing. The public isn’t — you know, they read newspapers, they see television, they watch. They don’t know if it’s true or false because they’re not involved. I’m involved. I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life. But I’m involved. So I know when you’re telling the truth or when you’re not. I just see many, many untruthful things.
And I’ll tell you what else I see. I see tone. You know the word “tone.” The tone is such hatred. I’m really not a bad person, by the way. No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that — the tone is such hatred.
I watched this morning a couple of the networks. And I have to say, Fox & Friends in the morning, they’re very honorable people. They’re very — not because they’re good, because they hit me also when I do something wrong. But they have the most honest morning show. That’s all I can say. It’s the most honest.
But the tone, Jim. If you look — the hatred. The, I mean, sometimes — sometimes somebody gets...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening. You just take a look at that show. That is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti­Trump. The good news is he doesn’t have good ratings. But the panel is almost exclusive anti­Trump. And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth; the hatred coming from other people on your network.
Now, I will say this. I watch it. I see it. I’m amazed by it. And I just think you’d be a lot better off, I honestly do. The public gets it, you know. Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN. They want to throw their placards at CNN. You know.
I — I think you would do much better by being different. But you just take a look. Take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening. If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it’s — it’s brutal.
Now, they’ll take this news conference — I’m actually having a very good time, OK? But they’ll take this news conference — don’t forget, that’s the way I won.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

22

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

22/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 116 of 205

Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day. OK?
(CROSSTALK) TRUMP: No, that’s how I won. I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time.
Tomorrow, they will say, “Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.” I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But — but I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it.
But tomorrow, the headlines are going to be, “Donald Trump rants and raves.” I’m not ranting and raving.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: If I may, just one more followup...
TRUMP: Should I let him have a little bit more? What do you think, Peter? Peter, should I have — let him have a little bit more?
Sit down. Sit down. We’ll...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir...
TRUMP: I’m changing it from fake news, though.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that under...
TRUMP: Very fake news. QUESTION: ... I know, but aren’t you...
(LAUGHTER)

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

23

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

23/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 117 of 205

TRUMP: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Real news, Mr. President, real news.
TRUMP: And you’re not related to our new...
QUESTION: I am not related, sir. No. I do like the sound of Secretary Acosta, I must say.
TRUMP: I looked — you know, I looked at that name. I said, wait a minute, is there any relation there? Alex Acosta.
QUESTION: I’m sure you checked that out, sir.
TRUMP: OK. Now I checked it — I said — they said, “No, sir.” I said, “Do me a favor, go back and check the family tree.”
QUESTION: But aren’t you — aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don’t like “fake news”? Why not just say it’s a story I don’t like.
TRUMP: I do that.
QUESTION: When you call it “fake news,” you’re undermining confidence in our news media (inaudible) important.
TRUMP: No, no. I do that. Here’s the thing. OK. I understand what you’re — and you’re right about that, except this. See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad. And sometimes I’ll say, “Wow, that’s going to be a great story.” And I’ll get killed.
I know what’s good and bad. I’d be a pretty good reporter, not as good as you. But I know what’s good. I know what’s bad. And when they change it and make it really bad, something that should be positive — sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make OK. They’ll even make it negative.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

24

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

24/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 118 of 205

So I understand it. So, because I’m there. I know what was said. I know who’s saying it. I’m there. So it’s very important to me.
Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?
Of course, he had some questions also. But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster. I would be your biggest fan in the world, including bad stories about me. But if you go — as an example, you’re CNN, I mean it’s story after story after story is bad. I won. I won. And the other thing, chaos because zero chaos. We are running — this is a fine­tuned machine and Reince happens to be doing a good job but half of his job is putting out lies by the press (ph).
You know, I said to him yesterday this whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don’t talk about the real subject which is illegal leaks, but I watched him yesterday working so hard to try and get that story proper. And I’m saying “here’s my chief of staff,” a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at RNC. I mean, he won the election, right?
We won the presidency. We got some senators, we got some — all over the country, you take a look, he’s done a great job. And I said to myself, you know — and I said to somebody that was in the room, I said “you take a look at Reince, he’s working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires.” I mean, they’re fake. They’re not true. And isn’t that a shame because he’d rather be working on healthcare, he’d rather be working on tax reform, Jim (ph).
I mean that. I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right. I sort of understand there’s a certain bias maybe by Jeff (ph) or somebody, you know — you know, whatever reason. But — and I understand that. But you’ve got to be at least a little bit fair and that’s why the public sees it. They see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred.
And the public is smart, they understand it. Go ahead.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

25

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

25/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 119 of 205

QUESTION: (inaudible) ...for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over the last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn’t fake news? And second...
TRUMP: ...I think they don’t believe it. I don’t think the public — that’s why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof. I don’t think they believe it. Well, I guess one of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing, that’s a ruse. That’s a ruse. And by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that.
Now tomorrow, you’ll say “Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia, this is terrible.” It’s not terrible. It’s good. We had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things.
Nobody talks about that. I didn’t do anything for Russia. I’ve done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember? With the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks. Here, take a look. He looked at her like, what the hell is she doing with that cheap plastic button?
Hillary Clinton — that was the reset, remember it said reset? Now if I do that, oh, I’m a bad guy. If we could get along with Russia, that’s a positive thing. We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who’s going to be meeting with them shortly and I told him. I said “I know politically it’s probably not good for me.” The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water.
Everyone in this country’s going to say “oh, it’s so great.” That’s not great. That’s not great. I would love to be able to get along with Russia. Now, you’ve had a lot of presidents that haven’t taken that tack. Look where we are now. Look where we are now. So, if I can — now, I love to negotiate things, I do it really well, and all that stuff. But — but it’s possible I won’t be able to get along with Putin.
Maybe it is. But I want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people, the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

26

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

26/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 120 of 205

Russia. And probably Putin said “you know.” He’s sitting behind his desk and he’s saying “you know, I see what’s going on in the United States, I follow it closely. It’s going to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure he’s got with this fake story.” OK?
And that’s a shame because if we could get along with Russia — and by the way, China and Japan and everyone. If we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.
QUESTION: Is tax reform on the line (ph)?
QUESTION: Mr. President? Mr. President? Mr. President, since you...
TRUMP: Tax reform is going to happen fairly quickly. We’re doing Obamacare. We’re in final stages. We should be submitting the initial plan in March, early March, I would say. And we have to, as you know, statutorily and for reasons of budget, we have to go first. It’s not like, frankly, the tax would be easier, in my opinion, but for statutory reasons and for budgetary reasons, we have to submit the healthcare sooner.
So we’ll be submitting healthcare sometime in early March, mid­ March. And after that, we’re going to come up, and we’re doing very well on tax reform.
Yes?
QUESTION: Mr. President, you mentioned Russia. Let’s talk about some serious issues that have come up in the last week that you have had to deal with as president of the United States.
TRUMP: OK.
QUESTION: You mentioned the vessel — the spy vessel off the coast of the United States.
TRUMP: Not good.
QUESTION: There was a ballistic missile test that many interpret as a violation of an agreement between the two countries; and a Russian plane buzzed a U.S.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

27

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

27/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 121 of 205

destroyer.
TRUMP: Not good.
QUESTION: I listened to you during the campaign ...
TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. When did it happen? It happened when, if you were Putin right now, you would say, “Hey, we’re back to the old games with the United States; there’s no way Trump can ever do a deal with us.” Because the — you have to understand. If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, “Oh, isn’t that wonderful.” But I know you well enough.
Then you would say, “Oh, he was too tough; he shouldn’t have done that.” Look, all of the...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I’m just trying to find out your orientation to those...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Wait a minute. Wait, wait. Excuse me just one second.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: All of those things that you mentioned are very recent, because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal. So Hillary Clinton tries a reset. It failed. They all tried. But I’m different than those people.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: How are you interpreting those moves? And what do you intend to do about them? Have you given Rex Tillerson any advice or counsel on how to deal?
TRUMP: I have. I have. And I’m so beautifully represented. I’m so honored that the Senate approved him. He’s going to be fantastic.
Yes, I think that I’ve already...

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

28

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

28/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 122 of 205

QUESTION: Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir?
TRUMP: No, I don’t think so. I think Putin probably assumes that he can’t make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to make a deal. I can’t believe I’m saying I’m a politician, but I guess that’s what I am now.
Because, look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we’re not going to make a deal.
Now, I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal. I don’t know. We might. We might not. But it would be much easier for me to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia, the better. But you know what? I want to do the right thing for the American people. And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.
If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along — and don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There’s no upside. We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.
They’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.
QUESTION: So when you say they’re not good, do you mean that they are...
TRUMP: Who did I say is not good?
QUESTION: No, I read off the three things that have recently happened. Each one of them you said they’re not good.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: No, it’s not good, but they happened.
QUESTION: But do they damage the relationship? Do they undermine...

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

29

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

29/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 123 of 205

TRUMP: They all happened recently.
No...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... this country’s ability to work with Russia?
TRUMP: They all happened recently. And I understand what they’re doing because they’re doing the same thing.
Now, again, maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I will have tried. And if I don’t, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump? Does anybody in this room really believe that? OK?
But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the reset. She gave all that valuable uranium away. She did other things. You know, they say I’m close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia.
QUESTION: Can we...
TRUMP: I gave — you know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave? Nothing.
QUESTION: Can we conclude there will be no response to these particular provocations?
TRUMP: I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don’t talk about military response. I don’t say I’m going into Mosul in four months. “We are going to attack Mosul in four months.” Then three months later, “We are going to attack Mosul in one month.” “Next week, we are going to attack Mosul.”
In the meantime, Mosul is very, very difficult. Do you know why? Because I don’t talk about military, and I don’t talk about certain other things, you’re going to be surprised to hear that. And by the way, my whole campaign, I’d say that. So I don’t have to tell you. I don’t want to be one of these guys that say, “Yes, here’s what

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

30

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

30/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 124 of 205

we’re going to do.” I don’t have to do that. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Wait a minute. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea. And I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do with Iran. You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.
TRUMP: So when you ask me what am I going to do with a ship, the Russian ship as an example, I’m not going to tell you. But hopefully, I won’t have to do anything, but I’m not going to tell you.
OK.
QUESTION: Could I just ask you — thank you very much, Mr. President. The trouble...
TRUMP: Where are you from?
QUESTION: BBC.
TRUMP: Here’s another beauty.
QUESTION: That’s a good line. Impartial, free and fair.
TRUMP: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Mr. President...
TRUMP: Just like CNN right?
QUESTION: On the travel ban — we could banter back and forth. On the travel ban would you accept that that was a good example of the smooth running of government...
TRUMP: Yeah, I do. I do. Let me tell you about this government...

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

31

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

31/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 125 of 205

QUESTION: Were there any mistakes...
TRUMP: Wait. Wait. I know who you are. Just wait.
Let me tell you about the travel ban. We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. We had a court that’s been overturned. Again, may be wrong. But I think it’s 80 percent of the time, a lot.
We had a bad decision. We’re going to keep going with that decision. We’re going to put in a new executive order next week some time. But we had a bad decision.
That’s the other thing that was wrong with the travel ban. You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports. You had some people that were put out there, brought by very nice busses, and they were put out at various locations.
Despite that the only problem that we had is we had a bad court. We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision. Very bad for the safety and security of our country. The rollout was perfect.
Now, what I wanted to do was do the exact same executive order, but said one thing. I said this to my people. Give them a one­month period of time. But Gen. Kelly, now Sec. Kelly, said if you do that, all these people will come in and (inaudible) the bad ones.
You do agree there are bad people out there, right? That not everybody that’s like you. You have some bad people out there.
Kelly said you can’t do that. And he was right. As soon as he said it I said wow, never thought of it. I said how about one week? He said no good. You got to do it immediately because if you do it immediately they don’t have time to come in.
Now nobody ever reports that. But that’s why we did it quickly.
Now, if I would’ve done it a month, everything would’ve been perfect. The problem is we would’ve wasted a lot of time, and maybe a lot of lives because a lot of

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

32

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

32/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 126 of 205

bad people would’ve come into our country.
Now in the meantime, we’re vetting very, very strongly. Very, very strongly. But we need help. And we need help by getting that executive order passed.
QUESTION: Just a brief follow­up. But if it’s so urgent, why not introduce...
TRUMP: Yes? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. I was just hoping that we could get a yes or no answer on one of these questions involving Russia. Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?
TRUMP: Well I told you, Gen. Flynn obviously was dealing. So that’s one person. But he was dealing, as he should have been.
QUESTION: During the election?
TRUMP: No. Nobody that I know of. Nobody... QUESTION: So you’re not aware of any contact during the course..
TRUMP: Look, look, look...
QUESTION: ... of the election? TRUMP: How many times do I have to answer this question?
QUESTION: Can you just say yes or no? TRUMP: Russia is a ruse.
I know you have to get up and ask a question. It’s so important.
Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to.
I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

33

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

33/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 127 of 205

We had a very good talk, especially the second one, lasted for a pretty long period of time. I’m sure you probably get it because it was classified. So I’m sure everybody in this room perhaps has it. But we had a very, very good talk.

I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.
Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine, or people that — whoever. But people knew that. Everybody knew that.
QUESTION: But in his capacity as your campaign manager, was he in touch with Russian officials during the election?
TRUMP: You know what? He said no. I could only tell you what he — now he was replaced long before the election. You know that, right?
He was replaced long before the election. When all of this stuff started coming out, it came out during the election. But Paul Manafort, who’s a good man also by the way, Paul Manfort was replaced long before the election took place. He was only there for a short period of time.
QUESTION: Mr. President...
TRUMP: How much longer should we stay here, folks?
QUESTION: Mr. President...
TRUMP: Five more minutes. Is that OK? Five?
QUESTION: Mr. President, on national...
TRUMP: Wait. Let’s see. Who’s — I want to find a friendly reporter.
QUESTION: Mr....
TRUMP: Are you a friendly reporter? Watch how friendly he is. Wait. Wait. Watch how friendly he is. Go ahead.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

34

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

34/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 128 of 205

QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE)...
TRUMP: Go ahead.
QUESTION: So first of all, my name is (Inaudible) from (Inaudible) Magazine. I (inaudible). I haven’t seen anybody in my community, including yourself or any of the — anyone on your staff of being (OFF­MIKE).
Because (OFF­MIKE). However, what we’ve already heard about and what we (OFF­MIKE) is (OFF­MIKE) so you’re general forecast (ph) like 48 (OFF­MIKE). There are people who are everything (ph) happens through their packs (ph) is one of the (OFF­MIKE)...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: ...he said he was gonna ask a very simple, easy question. And it’s not, its not, not — not a simple question, not a fair question. OK sit down, I understand the rest of your question.
So here’s the story, folks. Number one, I am the least anti­ Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism, the least racist person. In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican — quiet, quiet, quiet.
See, he lied about — he was gonna get up and ask a very straight, simple question, so you know, welcome to the world of the media. But let me just tell you something, that I hate the charge, I find it repulsive.
I hate even the question because people that know me and you heard the prime minister, you heard Ben Netanyahu (ph) yesterday, did you hear him, Bibi? He said, I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time and then he said, forget it.
So you should take that instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

35

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

35/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 129 of 205

QUESTION: Thank you, I’m Lisa (ph) from the...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: See, it just shows you about the press, but that’s the way the press is.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Lisa Dejardown (ph) from the PBS News Hour. On national security and immigration, can you give us more details on the executive order you plan for next week? Even its broad outlines?
TRUMP: Yeah.
QUESTION: Will it be focused on specific...
TRUMP: It’s a very fair question.
QUESTION: ...countries? And in addition, on the DACA program for immigration.
TRUMP: Right.
QUESTION: What is your plan, do you plan to continue that program or to end it?
TRUMP: We’re gonna show great heart, DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have because you have these incredible kids.
In many cases, not in all cases. And some of the cases, having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers, too. But you have some absolutely, incredible kids, I would say mostly. They were brought here in such a way — it’s a very — it’s a very, very tough subject.

We’re gonna deal with DACA with heart. I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don’t forget and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is — is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that.

But the DACA situation is a very, very — it’s a very difficult thing for me because you know, I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grandkids. And I find it very,

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

36

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

36/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 130 of 205

very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and you know, the law is rough.

I’m not talking about new laws, I’m talking the existing law, is very rough, it’s very, very rough. As far as the new order, the new order is going to be very much tailored to the what I consider to be a very bad decision.

But we can tailor the order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways, more. But we’re tailoring it now to the decision, we have some of the best lawyers in the country working on it.

And the new executive order, is being tailored to the decision we got down from the court. OK?

QUESTION: Mr. President...

R TRUMP: Yes.

: ...reopening of the White House Visitors Office?

QUESTION: And she does a lot of great work for the country as well (ph). Can you talk a little bit about what’s first for (ph) Melania Trump does for the country and (inaudible) so opening White House Visitors Office, what does that mean...

TRUMP: Now, that’s what I call a nice question. That is very — who are you with?

QUESTION: (OFF­MIKE)

TRUMP: Good, I’m gonna start watching, all right? Thank you very much. Melania’s terrific, she was here last night, we had dinner with Senator Rubio and his wife who is by the way, lovely.

And we had a really good discussion about Cuba because we have very similar views on Cuba. And Cuba was very good to me in the Florida election, as you know the Cuban Americans. And I think that Melania’s gonna be outstanding, that’s right, she just opened up the visitors center, in other words, touring of the White House.

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

37

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

37/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 131 of 205

She, like others that she’s working with, feel very, very strongly about women’s issue, women’s difficulties. Very, very strongly, she’s a very, very strong advocate. I think she’s a great representative for this country.
And a funny thing happens, because she gets — she gets so unfairly — Melania, the things they say. I’ve known her for a long time, she was a very successful person, she was a very successful model. She did really well.
She would go home at night and didn’t even want to go out with people. She was a very private person. She was always the highest quality that you’ll ever find. And the things they say — I’ve known her for a long time — the things they say are so unfair. And actually, she’s been apologized to, as you know, by various media because they said things that were lies.
I’ll just tell you this. I think she’s going to be a fantastic first lady. She’s going to be a tremendous representative of women and of the people. And helping her and working her will be Ivanka, who is a fabulous person and a fabulous, fabulous woman. And they’re not doing this for money.
They’re not doing this for pay, they’re doing this because they feel it; both of them. And Melania goes back and forth and after Barron finishes school — because it’s hard to take a child out of school with a few months left — she and Barron will be moving over to the White House. OK, thank you, that’s a very nice question.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Yes, oh, this is going to be a bad question, but that’s OK.
QUESTION: It doesn’t(ph) have(ph) to be a bad question.
TRUMP: Good, because I enjoy watching you on television. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, thank you so much. Mr. President, I need to find out from you, you said something as it relates to inner cities. That was one of your platforms during your campaign. Now you’re —

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

38

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

38/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 132 of 205

TRUMP: Fix the inner cities.
QUESTION: — president. Fixing the inner cities.
TRUMP: Yep.
QUESTION: What will be that fix and your urban agenda as well as your HBCU Executive Order that’s coming out this afternoon? See, it wasn’t bad, was it?
TRUMP: That was very professional and very good.
QUESTION: I’m very professional.
TRUMP: We’ll be announcing the order in a little while and I’d rather let the order speak for itself. But it could be something that I think that will be very good for everybody concerned. But we’ll talk to you about that after we do the announcement. As far as the inner cities, as you know, I was very strong on the inner cities during the campaign.
I think it’s probably what got me a much higher percentage of the African American vote than a lot of people thought I was going to get. We did, you know, much higher than people thought I was going to get. And I was honored by that, including the Hispanic vote, which was also much higher.
And by the way, if I might add, including the women’s vote, which was much higher than people thought I was going to get. So, we are going to be working very hard on the inner cities, having to do with education, having to do with crime. We’re going to try and fix as quickly as possible — you know, it takes a long time.
It’s taken more a hundred years and more for some of these places to evolve and they evolved, many of them, very badly. But we’re going to be working very hard on health and healthcare, very, very hard on education, and also we’re going to be working in a stringent way, in a very good way, on crime.
You go to some of these inner city places and it’s so sad when you look at the crime. You have people — and I’ve seen this, and I’ve sort of witnessed it — in fact, in

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

39

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

39/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 133 of 205

two cases I have actually witnessed it. They lock themselves into apartments, petrified to even leave, in the middle of the day.
They’re living in hell. We can’t let that happen. So, we’re going to be very, very strong. That’s a great question and — and it’s a — it’s a very difficult situation because it’s been many, many years. It’s been festering for many, many years. But we have places in this country that we have to fix.
We have to help African American people that, for the most part, are stuck there. Hispanic American people. We have Hispanic American people that are in the inner cities and their living in hell. I mean, you look at the numbers in Chicago. There are two Chicagos, as you know.
There’s one Chicago that’s incredible, luxurious and all — and safe. There’s another Chicago that’s worse than almost any of the places in the Middle East that we talk, and that you talk about, every night on the newscasts. So, we’re going to do a lot of work on the inner cities.
I have great people lined up to help with the inner cities. OK?
QUESTION: Well, when you say the inner cities, are you going — are you going to include the CBC, Mr. President, in your conversations with your — your urban agenda, your inner city agenda, as well as —
TRUMP: Am I going to include who?
QUESTION: Are you going to include the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional —
TRUMP: Well, I would. I tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?
QUESTION: — Hispanic Caucus —
TRUMP: Do you want to set up the meeting?
QUESTION: No — no — no. I’m not —
TRUMP: Are they friends of yours?

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

40

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

40/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 134 of 205

QUESTION: I’m just a reporter.
TRUMP: Well, then(ph) set up the meeting.
QUESTION: I know some of them, but I’m sure they’re watching right now.
TRUMP: Let’s go set up a meeting. I would love to meet with the Black Caucus. I think it’s great, the Congressional Black Caucus. I think it’s great. I actually thought I had a meeting with Congressman Cummings and he was all excited. And then he said, well, I can’t move, it might be bad for me politically. I can’t have that meeting.
I was all set to have the meeting. You know, we called him and called him. And he was all set. I spoke to him on the phone, very nice guy.
QUESTION: I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well.
TRUMP: He wanted it, but we called, called, called and can’t make a meeting with him. Every day I walk and say I would like to meet with him because I do want to solve the problem. But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that, some other lightweight. He was probably told — he was probably told “don’t meet with Trump. It’s bad politics.”
And that’s part of the problem in this country. OK, one more.
QUESTION: (inaudible)
TRUMP: No, no, one question. Two we can’t handle. This room can’t handle two. Go ahead, give me the better of your two.
QUESTION: (inaudible) ...not about your personality or your beliefs, talking about (inaudible), some of it by supporters in your name. What do you...
TRUMP: ...And some of it — can I be honest with you? And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up. Some of it written by our opponents. You do know that. Do you understand that? You don’t think anybody would do a thing like that. Some of the signs you’ll see are not put up by the people that love or like Donald Trump, they’re put up by the other side and you think it’s like playing it straight?

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

41

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

41/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 135 of 205

No. But you have some of those signs and some of that anger is caused by the other side. They’ll do signs and they’ll do drawings that are inappropriate. It won’t be my people. It will be the people on the other side to anger people like you. OK.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Go ahead, go ahead.
QUESTION: You’re the president now. What are you going to do about it?
TRUMP: Who is that? Where is that?
QUESTION: What are you going to do about — what are you going to do about (inaudible).
TRUMP: Oh, I’m working on it. I’m working on it very — no, no, look. Hey, just so you understand, we had a totally divided country for eight years and long before that. In all fairness to President Obama, long before President Obama we have had a very divided — I didn’t come along and divide this country. This country was seriously divided before I got here.
We’re going to work on it very hard. One of the questions I was asked, I thought it was a very good question was about the inner cities. I mean, that’s part of it. But we’re going to work on education, we’re going to work on — you know, we’re going to stop — we’re going to try and stop the crime. We have great law enforcement officials, we’re going to try and stop crime.
We’re not going to try and stop, we’re going to stop crime. But it’s very important to me — but this isn’t Donald Trump that divided a nation. We went eight years with President Obama and we went many years before President Obama. We lived in a divided nation. And I am going to try — I will do everything within my power to fix that. I want to thank everybody very much.
It’s a great honor to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much, thanks.
END

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

42

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

42/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 136 of 205

Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter , and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.

Access to NYTimes.com and all NYTimes apps Unlimited article access, anytime, anywhere Learn more ►
Times Insider Access, including behind­the­scenes stories, exclusive events, podcasts, and e­books 1 complimentary digital subscription to give anyone you'd like Learn more ►

Customized delivery options such as Sunday only, Fri.­Sun., weekday delivery, or daily delivery The weekly Sunday magazine and monthly T Magazine 2 complimentary digital subscriptions to give anyone you'd like

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

43

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

43/44

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-0013F5ul-l JTrLanRscripDt aondcVuidmeoe: Tnrutm6p8N-e1ws CFoinlfeerdenc0e3- /T1he3N/1ew7YorPk Taimgees 137 of 205

Learn more ►

© 2017 The New York Times Company

EXH. V TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

44

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

44/44

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 138 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cvT-0ru0m1p 3De5la-JinLRRevaDmopecduImmmei nrattio6n8O-rd1er FntiilleNde t0W3e/e1k,3O/1ic7ial SPa as -gBeloo1m39er of 205

Trump Delaying Revamped Immigration Order Until Next Week, Oﬃcial Says
by Jennifer Jacobs
February 22, 2017, 6:12 PM EST
President Donald Trump is delaying until next week issuing a new version of his order restricting immigration and banning travel to the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries, according to a White House oﬃcial.
Trump had said that a revamped executive order, tailored to address legal issues that blocked his original travel ban, would be released this week. The White House oﬃcial, who wasn’t authorized to discuss internal deliberations, didn’t give a reason for the delay.
Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order stopping all refugee resettlement in the U.S. and travel into the country from seven nations was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle. The Trump administration lost an attempt to reverse the temporary order when a federal appeals court sided against it.
"The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider a very, very bad decision," Trump said at a White House news conference last Thursday. "We can tailor the order to the decision to get just as much.”
The original order barred citizens of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya or Sudan from entering the U.S. for 90 days.
The administration on Tuesday outlined a sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants that oﬃcials said would result in the swift deportation of many more people without court hearings and target migrants charged with crimes or thought to be dangerous, not just convicts.

Terms o Service Trademarks Privac Polic 2017 Bloom er L.P. All Ri hts Reserved
Careers Made in N C Advertise Ad Choices We site eed ack Help

EXH. W TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www. loom er .com/politics/articles/2017-02-22/trump-said-to-dela -revamped-immi ration-order-until-ne t-week

Seattle, WA 98104

1/3

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 140 of 205
EXHIBIT X

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 141 of 205

81° /2

 SUBSCRIBE NOW As low as 99¢

Read: Full transcript of Trump's rally speech in Florida
   63
Jared Leone - Cox Media Group National Content Desk Updated 8:15 p.m Saturday, Feb. 18, 2017 Filed in National news

President Donald Trump addressed thousands of supporters during a campaign rally Saturday in Melbourne, Florida.
>>Read Trump speaks to thousands of supporters at Florida rally, brings one onstage
Here is a full transcript of Trump's remarks according to C-Span and Vox:
Thank you, everybody, thank you. I didn't know that Melania was going to be saying the Lord's Prayer, but I thought that was very beautiful, thank you, thank you.
It's so great to be here in Florida. My second home with you. This is a state I truly love. This is a state where we all had great victory together. Thank you.
ADVERTISING

Autoplay: On | Off

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

1/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 142 of 205

It's now been a month since my inauguration. And I am here to tell you about our incredible progress in making America great again. I'm also here to tell you about our plans for the future and they're big and they're bold and It's what our country is all about, believe me.

I'm here because I want to be among my friends and among the people. This was a great movement, a movement like has never been seen before in our country our probably anywhere else. This was a truly great movement And I want to be here with you, and I will always be with you. I promise you that. I want to be in a room filled with hard working American patriots who love their country, who salute their flag and who pray for a better future.

I also want to speak to you without the filter of the fake news. The dishonest media which has published one false story after another with no sources, even though they pretend they have them, they make them up in many cases, they just don't want to report the truth and they've been calling us wrong now for two years. They don't get it. By they're starting to get it. I can tell you that. They've become a big part of the problem. They are part of the corrupt system. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln and many of our greatest presidents fought with the media and called them out often times on their lies. When the media lies to people, I will never, ever let them get away with it. I will do whatever I can that. They don't get away with it.

They have their own agenda and their agenda is not your agenda. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, “nothing can be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” “Truth itself,” he said, “becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle,” that was June 14, my birthday, 1807. But despite all their lies, misrepresentations, and false stories, they could not defeat us in the primaries, and they could not defeat us in the general election, and we will continue to expose them for what they are, and most importantly, we will continue to win, win, win.

We are not going to let the fake news tell us what to do, how to live, or what to believe. We are free and independent people and we will make our own choices.

We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hear your demands, I hear your voices and I promise you I will deliver. I promise that. And by the way, you've seen what we've accomplished in a very short period of time. The White House is running so smoothly. So smoothly. And believe me, I and we inherited one big mess. That I can tell you, but I know that you want safe neighborhoods where the streets belong to families and communities, not gang members and drug dealers who are right now as I speak being thrown out of the country and they will not be let back in.

We will have strong borders again, and I mean that. You've seen it in television. You've seen it on television. General Kelly, now Secretary Kelly, he's really doing the job. You're seeing it. The gang members, bad, bad people. I said day one, and they're going out. Or they're being put in prison, but for the most part, get them the hell out of here. Bring them back to where they came from.

The fact is, you want great schools for your children. You want good high

paying jobs for yourselves and for your loved ones and for the future of your

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BAfaLmL iDlieEsC..You want a health care system2 and by the way,NwOeRaTrHe WgoEinSgTtIoMbMeIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

2/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 143 of 205
submitting in a couple of weeks a great healthcare plan that's going to take the place of the disaster known as Obamacare.
It will be repealed and replaced. For those people. The people put into rooms where Republicans are talking about the plan, and it wouldn't matter what they say, for those people just so you understand, our plan will be much better health care at a much lower coast. Okay? Nothing to complain about. Obamacare remember, it is a disaster.
You want low cost American energy also, which means lifting the restrictions on oil, on shell, on natural gas and on clean, very clean coal. We're going to put the miners back to work. The miners go back to work.
You want us to enforce immigration laws and defend our borders.
You want fair trade deals and a level playing field. We don't have a level playing field. Because you understand that when American workers win, America as a country wins and wins big. And every country over the last long period of time has been taking advantage of the [inaudible] of our politicians. It's not going to happen any longer.
You want lower taxes. Less regulation. Millions of new jobs and more product stamped with those beautiful, beautiful words, “Made in the USA.” You want to make it easy for companies to do business in America. And harder for companies to leave. We don't want companies saying, everybody is fired. We're moving to another country. We're going to make the product. Sell it across the border and isn't that wonderful. Not going happen anymore.
We're going to have strong borders and when they want to sell that product back across our border, they're going to pay a 35% tax and you know what, they're never going to leave. They will never, ever leave.
And you've seen that because I've already displayed it for the last two months even before I got into office. They're not leaving. And if they do, they're going to pay a big price for terminating the relationship with our workers. You want a government that serves the people not the donors and special interest. You want a government that keeps its promises.
A great spirit of optimism is sweeping and you see it. it's sweeping all across the country. Look at what's happening to the stock market. Look at what's happening to the every poll when it comes to optimism in our country. It's sweeping across the country. And, in fact, every day for the last long period of days this stock market means, companies, have been hitting new highs. They're going to start highs. It's going to be a new day in America. You're going to be proud again.
Jobs are already starting to pour back in. They're coming back in like you haven't seen in a long time. Ford, General Motors, Fiat, Chrysler are bringing in and bringing back thousands of jobs investing billions of dollars because of the new business climate that we are creating in our country. In Arizona, Intel, great company, just announced it will open a new plant that will create at least 10,000 brand new beautiful American jobs.
I followed through on my promise to withdraw from the job killing disaster known as the Trans­Pacific Partnership. TPP, we have just terminated our relationship to it. We're going to have tremendous trade deals all over the world, but they're going to be bilateral or as we would say, one­on­one. None of these deals where we get caught in quicksand. Get mired in and we can't do anything about it. By the way, NAFTA and so many others.

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

3/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 144 of 205
My administration has begun plans to crack down on foreign cheating and currency manipulation which is killing our companies and really, really hurting our workers. We're going to end it.

Within a few days of taking the oath of office, I've taken steps to begin the construction of the Keystone and the Dakota Access Pipelines. Anywhere from 30­40,000 jobs. And very importantly, as I was about to sign it, I said who makes the pipe? Who makes the pipe? Something this audience understands very well, right? Simple question. The lawyers put this very complex document in front. I said, who makes the pipe? They said, sir, it can be made anywhere. I said not anymore. I put a little clause in the bottom. The pipe has to be made in the United States of America if we're going to have pine line.

We believe in two simple rules. I can tell you everybody in this massive, this is a massive hanger. For the big planes. And by the way, do you think that one media group back there, one network will show this crowd. Not one. Not one. They won't show the crowd. You know, coming in on the plane, and that plane represented so much.

And just so you know, they were close to signing a $4.2 billion deal to have a new Air Force One. Can you believe this? I said no way. I said I refuse to fly in a $4.2 billion airplane. I refuse. So I got Boeing and it is actually — a lot of people don't know. The Air Force One project is actually two planes. Why they need to planes, we'll have to talk about that, but they have two planes, but we've got that price down over a billion dollars and I probably have it spoken to be honest with you for honest probably an more than an hour on the project. I got the generals in who are fantastic. I got Boeing in. I told Boeing it's not good enough. We're still not going to do it. The price is still too high. On the fighter jet. We were hundreds of billions of dollars over budget. Seven years late, great plane. A great plane.

So think of it. They're seven years late. Hundreds of billions of dollars overbudget. Other than that by the way the project is going extremely well. And I got the folks in from Lockheed Martin who are terrific people and a terrific product by the way. I also got Boeing in. I said do me a favor, give me a competing offer. And now they're competing and fighting and we've gotten hundreds of millions of dollars off the price of a plane that was going to be ordered, in other words, if my opponent got in, there would have been no calls made to them. They would have signed contracts. So they're going to make plenty of money, but it's going to be a lot less than they would have made without Trump. That I can tell you. You might as well know about it. Nobody talks. By the way, that's for fighter jets. One of the biggest orders in the history of aviation. The order for the F­35. You've been reading about it because it was a disaster. Under the last administration. A disaster. And now we have it running beautifully.

In fact, when the Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Abe, was great. Great guy. When he came over, he said, thank you. I said for what. You saved us many, many millions of dollars on the F­35 fighter jet. Because when I negotiated, I took our allies into the same negotiation. So the first thing he did was thanked med for saving them money and that's good. Okay. That's good. I know the media will never thank me so at least Japan is thanking me, right?

But we believe in two simple rules. Buy American and hire American. We

believe it. We've just issued a new order which requires that for every one

new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. And by the way, a

new director was just approved. Can you imagine the length of time it's taken

to Democrats and I actually think it's an embarrassment to them, but this is

getting in to be record setting time. Incredible people.

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

4/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 145 of 205
Scott Pruitt was just approved, just now approved for the Environmental Protection Agency. He'll do so good. He won't have projects going ten and 12 years and getting rejected. They may be rejected, but they'll be rejected quickly. For the most part, they're going to be accepted. They're going to be environmentally friendly and he is going to be a great Secretary. He will be amazing. We're very happy. That took place yesterday. That's going to be a big difference because they were clogging up the veins of our country with the environmental impact statements and all of the rules and regulations. It was impossible to navigate for companies.
And what did it really mean? Forget about the companies? What did it mean. It meant no jobs. It meant companies leaving our country and going to foreign countries to do things they would rather do here. So we're going to have a whole big situation. We are going to unfreeze all of those companies. They are going to be — they're going have freedom. Be able to build what they want to build. It will be environmentally friendly and we're going to start producing jobs like you've never seen before. That's going to happen. That was a big thing.
We're standing up for the incredible men and women always of law enforcement. We're standing up. And I can tell you, the military and law enforcement they stood up. I don't say for me. I'm the messenger folks. I'm the messenger. They stood up for us in this last election. We got numbers that nobody believed were possible from law enforcement and from military. Basically people they wear uniforms like us. Isn't that nice. I saw this man on TV just now, you. I just saw him on television. He said I love Trump. Let Trump do what he has to do. That's my guy right there. Come here. Come here. No, I just. I'm coming in. That's okay.
Let him up. I'm not worried about him. I'm only worried he's going to give me a kiss. I'm not worried about anything else. This guy is so great. He was one of many people. They're interviewing people in the line. And I have to say, there was a tiny group of protesters out there and they were given as much publicity as this massive room packed with people, but they interviewed this man. Come on up here. Come on up. Guy was great. Hop over the fence. Come on. He can do it. He's in good shape. Look at him. Look at this guy. Come on. This guy is great. Don't worry about him. No, no. Come here. They're going to — come on up. Come here.
This guy. So he's been all over television saying the best things and I see him standing and didn't you get here at like 4 in the morning.

Greg Huber I did sir.

Trump

Say a couple of words to this crowd.

Huber

Mr. President, thank you sir. We the people, our movement is the reason why our President of the United States is standing here in front of us today. When President Trump during the election promised all these things that he was going to do for us, I knew he was going to do this for us. Thank you so much, sir.

Trump

A star is born.

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BAHLuLbDeEr C.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

5/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 146 of 205
A star is born. That's fine.
Trump
I wouldn't say that Secret Service was thrilled with that, but we know our people, right? We know our people. Great guy. And so many others. I see some others. Being interviewed. I see them over here. They started. They came at 4 in the morning. The media will give them no credit. The media, as I told you, won't show this crowd.
All the way outside of this — this is a big a hanger as you get. All the way outside. Way back to the fences. Amazing. I want to thank you, but I want to thank everybody.
I've directed the Department of Justice to take a firm, firm stance to protect our cops, sheriffs, and police from crimes of violence against them. We will work with our police not against our police, our police do a great job and they've never been troubled like they're troubled now. It's very unfair what's happening. So we want to cherish our law enforcement. We will always protect those who protect us.
We've directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including our inner cities. We're going to make our inner cities safe again. Look at what's going on. Look at what's happening in Chicago. Hundreds of shootings, hundreds of deaths. I'll tell you what's happening in Chicago and many other places. Safety is a civil right. And we will fight to make America totally safe again.
I've ordered the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy transnational criminal cartels which are all over the United States and we are going to stop the drugs from pours into your country, into your community, into your cities and poisoning our youth. We're stopping it. We're stopping it. We've taken historic action to secure the southern border and I've ordered the construction of a great border wall, which will start very shortly.
And I've taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorist the hell out of our country. So you probably read where we want to enforce the laws as existing. And so we signed an order a couple of weeks ago, and it was taken over by a court originally by a judge and then a — yes, it's very sad. The reason is for protection and safety. So the statute is so plain and so clear.
I said last week, I was speaking to a great group of sheriffs, the sheriffs group in Washington, and I said if you have a college education, you can understand its. If you have a high school education, you can understand it. If you were a bad student in high school, you can understand it.
I was told. I'll check, but I found it hard to believe, over 30­page decision by the appellate court. Three judges. And you could tell by the way they were reacting because it was broadcast on television. Everything we do gets a lot of people watching. So you could tell by the way that phone call went, wasn't looking good. When they wrote their decision, as I understand it. Maybe I'm wrong.
They didn't write the statute they were making the decision about because every word of the statute is a total kill for the other side. So I thought I would read it. And here's what it says. This is what it says: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States” — okay. So essentially. Whenever somebody comes into the United States. Right.

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

6/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 147 of 205
“If it would be detrimental to the interest of the United States” — okay. Now you know the country's we're talking about and these were countries picked by Obama. They weren't even picked. They were picked by Obama.

“He may,” so the President may, “by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary” — now, because it should have said he or she, right. They were not politically correct when they drew this. In fact, that's the only thing that was actually wrong with it. He or she. I don't think the women care too much about that. Right? I don't think so. By the way, we did very well with women. You know, my wife said when some of these phony polls were put out, the CNN poll was so far off, the phony polls. When some of these, she said, what's wrong with you and women. We did very nicely with women. We did nicely with a lot of groups they didn't think we were going to do so nicely with. I guess we had to. That's why we're all here tonight. Right?

So and it goes, “for such as he shall seem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on aliens any restriction he may deem to be appropriate.” So basically it says the president has the right to keep people out if he feels it's not in the best interest of our country. Right? Unbelievable. Unbelievable. And I listened to these judges talk and talk and talk. So unfair. So we'll be doing something over the next couple of days. We don't give up. We never give up.

We had a court that I disagree with. I disagree with big league — and by the way, whether you read it or whether you watch it on television when other lawyers come on, many of them can't even understand. They're saying how do you come up with that decision. It cannot be more simple. So they're ruling on what I just read you and they don't even quote it in their ruling because you can't because it's too obvious. So we will do something next week. I think you'll be impressed. Let's see what happens.

Here's the bottom line. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what's happening in Brussels. You look at what's happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We've allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we're going to keep our country safe.

And we all have heart, by the way. And what I want to do is build safe zones in Syria and other places so they can stay there and live safely until their cities and their country, that mess that I was left by Obama and everybody else — folks, we were left a mess like you wouldn't believe, but we're going to build safe zones. We're going to have those safe zones.

We do owe $20 trillion. Okay. So we're going to have the gulf states pay for those safe zones. They've got nothing, but money. We're going to do it that way instead of taking massive numbers. Tens the of thousands of people into our country and we don't know anything about those people. We want people to come into our country, but we want people that love us. We want people that can cherish us and the traditions of our country. We want people that are going to be great for our country. We don't want people with bad, bad ideas. We don't want that.

I've also directed the defense community headed by General, now — you

know, he said it, he said it — and now Secretary ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, to develop

a plan to totally destroy ISIS. I have ordered the department of defense to

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BAbLeLgiDnEpCla.ns for the great rebuilding of t7he united states mNiOlitaRrTyH. WWeESwTillIMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

7/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 148 of 205
pursue peace through strength. Our military is badly depleted. You have planes in the military. Where the father flew them and now the son is flying them. Their so old. We make the best equipment anywhere in the world. We're going to start using our best and most modern equipment.
And we're going to make sure our veterans have the care they need when they come home. We love our veterans. We're going to do a great job for our veterans. Our veterans have been very, very sadly treated. These are our great great people. We owe them so much. Our veterans are going to be taken care of for once and for all. Our system and our country has led down our veterans. We are not going to let that go on any further. You wait and you see what we're going to be doing for our great veterans. Thank you veterans. Who is here? Who is a veteran? We're going to take care of our veterans.
We're going to downsize the bloated, bloated bureaucracy which make the government lien and accountable. We're going to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. I've already imposed a five year lobbying ban on the executive branch officials and lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.
And there's another major promise I have kept to the American people. I've nominated a fantastic justice to replace the late great Justice Scalia. His name is Judge Neil Gorsuch. He comes from my list of 20 very, very highly qualified judges. He's incredible and has an incredible resume. He's respected by all. His education is as good as it can get. His writings are truly amazing. He will be a true, true defender of our constitution. So let's tell the Senate Democrats to support his nomination for the good of the country because what's happening with the Democrats — no wonder they're doing so badly.
No wonder they're doing so badly. You take a look, race after race, I just want the tell you, in case you didn't read it, of course you're reading the fake news, but the Democrats were supposed to win the presidency. That didn't happen. They were supposed to take over the Senate. That didn't happen. And they were supposed to take over potentially even the House. It was going to be four weeks out the greatest defeat in the modern history of American politics. And it was, but it was for the Democrats, not for the Republicans. So we have to tell the Democrats, because they're doing the wrong thing for the American people, to stop their tactics of delay and obstruction and destruction. They got to get on with it.
My administration is also pushing ahead strongly with very historic tax reform. We are working to lower tax rates in the middle class to reduce tax rates big league on businesses and to make our tax code more fair and very simple for all Americans so it's understandable by everyone. Senate Democrats should work with us to lower taxes and bring back our jobs, but the Democrats want to increase your taxes very, very substantially. We're not going let that happen.
Also time for the Senate Democrats to take responsibility for Obamacare and to work with us to replace it with new reforms that reverse this nation­wide healthcare tragedy. It's a tragedy. You look at some states, Arizona, up 116%. Your deductibles have gone so high you can never use it. Obamacare doesn't work. It's become totally unaffordable. Remember they said the healthcare, it's unaffordable. It doesn't work. And I said to the Republicans, I said you want to do something great politically: don't do anything. Sit back for two years, let it explode. The Democrats will come and beg for us to do something, but we can't do that to the American people. We have to fix it. And we will.

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

8/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 149 of 205
We need members of both parties to join hands and work with us to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure plan to build new roads and bridges and airports and tunnels and highways and railways all across our great nation.

You're all part of this incredible movement. This movement that we talk about so much. That's been written about on the cover of every magazine all over the world. It's a movement that is just sweeping. It's sweeping across our country. It's sweeping frankly across the globe. Look at Brexit. Look at Brexit. Much smaller example, but it's still something you can look at. People want to take back control of their countries and they want to take back control of their lives and the lives of their family.

The nation state remains the best model for human happiness and the American nation remains the greatest symbol of liberty, of freedom and justice on the face of god's earth. And now we have spirit like we've never had before. It's now that we have our sacred duty and we have no choice and we want this choice to defend our country, to protect its values and to serve its great, great citizens. Erasing national borders does not make people safer. It undermines democracy and trade prosperity. We're giving it away.

The so­called global elite have done well for themselves, but left working families with shrinking wages. Really they are shrinking. 18 years ago though many of you in this room made more money working one job than you're making right now working two and three jobs. Instead of peace, we've seen wars that never end and conflicts that never seem to go away. We don't fight to win. We fight politically correct wars. We don't win anymore. We don't win at trade. We don't win in any capacity. We don't win anymore. We're going to start winning again. Believe me.

And we have the chance now working together to deliver change for the ages. This will be change for the ages. Change like never before. To pursue real peace, real stability, and real prosperity. We want to secure our borders and protect our workers. To rebuild our military and our infrastructure. To fix our schools and restore safety to our neighborhoods. To bring hope and opportunity to our inner cities. To ensure a level playing field for all women in the workforce. To reform our tax code and remove the regulations that undermine growth and innovation. And to replace chaos and distrust with community and cooperation. The tired echoes of yesterday's fights. We're fighting battles that no longer help us. We're fighting battles that other people aren't treating us fairly in the fight.

I'm a NATO fan, but many of the countries in NATO, many of the countries that we protect, many of these countries are very rich countries. They're not paying their bills. They're not paying their bills. They have to help us. No longer are we chained down by the discredited approaches of the past. No longer must we listen to those who have nothing to brag about, but failure. New circumstances demand new solutions. Americans have fought and won wars together. Our heroes have shed their blood together and lost their lives. Our citizens have raised their children together, fought for justice together, and shared common hopes and dreams from one generation to the next. Stretching back to the first day of our American independence. This is our legacy. It belongs to all of you. And it belongs to every man, woman, and child in our nation.

Now is the time to call upon these deep ties in the name of bold acts. Let us

move past the differences party and find a new loyalty rooted deeply in our

country. We are all brothers and all sisters. We share one home. One destiny

and one glorious American flag. We are united together by history and by

providence. We will make America strong again. I promise. We will make

America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BAALmLeDrEicCa.great again. Greater than eve9r before.

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

9/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRReaDd:oFculul trmanescnritpt6of8T-ru1mp'Fs rialellydsp0ee3c/h1in3F/l1or7ida Page 150 of 205
May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
VIEW COMMENTS 63

PROMOTED STORIES
3 Ways to Treat RA
LiveStrong for Healthline - Ad

Sponsored Links by Taboola

Unsecured Business Loans up to $600k in 24 hours
Snapcap.com - Ad

Entr y is FAST & FREE for $7,000 a Week For Life
Publishers Clearing House - Ad

Woodstock 1969 Vintage Photos You Never Saw
Lifestylogy - Ad

Find Hotel Reservati ons Up to 60% Off
Priceline - Ad

Moments Captured When It All Went So Wrong
Auto Overload - Ad

WEATHER AND TRAFFIC
82°
2

MOST READ
No, at $20 million, Miami Dolphins QB Ryan Tannehill
1. isn’t overpaid
Delray Beach: Subculture Coffee closes, looking for new
2. location
Miami Dolphins TE Julius Thomas says he’s healed; injuries not
3. chronic

THINGS TO DO

EXH. X TO MACLEOD-BALFLacDesEICn .Flux The Work of Rolando Chang Bar1re0ro ...

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLFRri, Mar 17 6:00 am

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida/DeDCpoNEKLQmWcIKndWB0M/ Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

10/10

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 151 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 52 of 205

the WHITE HOUSE

Í

From the Press Oyice
Speeches Remarks Press Brie ings Statements Releases Presidential Actions Le islation Nominations Appointments Disclosures

The White House Oyice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

February 23, 2017

Press Brieng by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/23/2017, #15

James S. Brady Press Briefing Roomï

2:58 P.M. EST
MR. SPICER: ïI was thinking about not doing a briefing today, and then I saw Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon give that talk and I thought they were infringing on my ratings, so we figured we had to do something to keep up our record.

It’s been another busy day today. ïThis morning, azer receiving his daily intelligence

briefing, the President welcomed some of the world’s top business and manufacturing leaders to the White House to continue the administration’s eyort to engage with the private sector to create jobs and expand opportunities for America’s workers. ïThe 24 CEOs spent

the

moErnXHin. g

TinO

MwAoCrLkEiOnDg-BsAeLsLsDioECn.s

with

the

Vice

Presid1ent,

Cabinet

members and key aides,
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 53 of 205

and came together with the President to brief him on their discussions and

recommendations.

The group discussed the need to roll back burdensome regulations that are stifling economic growth. ïThe CEOs thanked the President for the actions that he’s already taken to address the issues, and the President pledged to do even more, both through the executive branch and by working with Congress to pass legislation that will help further economic growth and job creation.

The business leaders recommended that the administration take a multifaceted approach to tax and trade policies, including tax reform, toward which Secretary Mnuchin said that progress is continuing to be made. ïThe President committed to working to lower taxes and level the playing field with other countries when it comes to trade and taxation.

The group held a lengthy discussion about the need to invest in the American worker to
prepare for the manufacturing jobs of the future, especially the key role of vocational schools in training the workforce of the 21st century. ïThe CEOs and administration oyicials
agreed that public-private partnerships will be the cornerstone of a robust plan to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. ïThe President committed to streamlining a permitting process that is holding back so many key projects. ï

At the end of the discussion, the group expressed their excitement for having a true partner in economic growth in the White House, and Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical, even said that this is probably the most pro-business administration since the Founding Fathers. ïThe President conveyed his intention to assemble the industry leaders on a regular basis to discuss progress towards these important goals. ïA full list of the participants is available.

This azernoon, the President spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau by phone. ïWe’ll have a readout on that call soon. ïRight now, many of you just came from the President, who is involved in another listening session with leaders in the fight against domestic and international human trayicking, including representatives from International Justice Mission and United Way. ïTheir expertise will be invaluable to the President as he engages with members of Congress to raise awareness about, and push through, legislation aimed at preventing all forms of the horrific and unacceptable practice of the buying and selling of human lives.

Human trayicking is a dire problem, both domestically and internationally. ïAnd solving this epidemic is a huge priority for the President. ïDedicated men and women from across the federal government have focused on this for some time, and the President is committed to continue working with these organizations and departments. ïA participant list for this listening session is also going to be available.

The PreEsXiHd.enTtOthMiAsCeLEvOeDn-iBnAgLLwDiElCl .attend a dinner with t2he Business NCOoRuTnHcWiEl.SïT IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 54 of 205

Today in Mexico, Secretaries Tillerson and Kelly had productive meetings at the Cabinet level with oyicials from the Mexican government. ïThey were forward-looking meetings

focused on finding common-ground ways to advance both of our countries’ security and economic wellbeing. ïBoth sides had a candid discussion on the breadth of challenges and

opportunities as part of the U.S.-Mexico relationship.

The conversation covered a full range of bilateral issues, including energy, legal migration, security, education exchanges, and people-to-people ties. ïThe parties also reiterated our joint commitment to maintaining law and order at our shared border by stopping potential terrorists and dismantling the transnational criminal networks that are moving drugs and people into the United States.

Under this President there is no mistaking that rule of law matters along both sides of our border. ïBoth Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Kelly are meeting with President Peña Nieto this azernoon. ïThat will be a continuation of the productive dialogue that is setting our two
countries down a pathway to greater security and long-term prosperity.

Looking ahead to our upcoming schedule, tomorrow the President will welcome President of Peru for a working-level visit. ïThe President of Peru is in town for a separate visit and requested a meeting with the President. ïThere will be a spray at the top of that. ïFurther guidance will be provided later today. ïThe President will also speak at CPAC tomorrow. ïI
know the President is looking forward to addressing this group of conservative-committed
individuals.

Our nation’s governors are starting to gather in Washington this week for a meeting of the National Governors Association. ïThe President and the First Lady will welcome the governors to the White House on Sunday evening. ïThe Vice President and members of the Cabinet will also be in attendance. ïWhile the governors are in town, they will be meeting with members of the Cabinet, White House stay, and other Secretaries including Kelly, Price, and Secretary Chao have also set up a series of meetings. ï
The President, Vice President, and senior White House stay will also participate in a portion of the business session of NGA’s winter meeting that takes place on Monday morning.

Next week, of course, the President will give a joint session address before both Houses of Congress. ïHe’s currently working closely with the speechwriting team on presenting his vision to Congress and the American people. ïI’ve got a few updates that I want to just -- as we’re now a few days out. ïThe theme of the address will be the renewal of the American spirit. ïThe address will particularly focus on public safety, including defense, increased
border security, taking care of our veterans, and then economic opportunity, including
education, job training, healthcare reform, jobs, and tax and regulatory reform.

With thEaXtH, .I’dTbOeMgAClaLdEOtDo-BtAaLkLeDaECf.ew of your questions.3ï

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 55 of 205

Q ï ïTwo questions. ïFirst, the White House said previously that that travel ban was pushed

quickly out of necessity for national security, and now we’re hearing there’s these repeated delays while the new one is being drazed. ïHow do we reconcile those two talking points? ïThat’s question one.

And then secondly, the President said today that the deportations taking place under his watch are a military operation. ïSecretary Kelly said the military won’t be involved in deportations. ïDid the President misspeak?
MR. SPICER: ïSo I’ll take the latter first. ïThe President was using that as an adjective. ïIt’s happening with precision, and in a manner in which it’s being done very, very clearly. ï

I think we’ve made it clear in the past, and Secretary Kelly reiterated it, what kind of operation this was. ïBut the President was clearly describing the manner in which this was being done. ïAnd so just to be clear on his use of that phrase. ïAnd I think the way it’s being
done, by all accounts, is being done with very much a high degree of precision and a
flawless manner in terms of making sure that the orders are carried out, and it’s done in a very streamlined and eyicient manner.

I’m sorry, the first part was?
Q ï ïThe first one was about the travel ban.
MR. SPICER: ïYeah. ïAnd I think, look, we have made it very clear that we believe that the first one was done in compliance with U.S. code and the authority granted to the President. ïThis time, the order is finalized. ïWhat we are doing is now in the implementation phase of working with the respective departments and agencies to make sure that when we execute this, it’s done in a manner that’s flawless.
And so it’s not a question of delaying, it’s a question of getting it right. ïWe’ve taken the Court’s opinions and concerns into consideration, but the order is finalized. ïIt’s now awaiting implementation. ïWhat we want to do is make sure that we’re working through the departments and agencies so that any concerns or questions are handled on the front end. ïBut we are acting with appropriate haste and diligence to make sure that the order is done in an appropriate manner.
Q ï ïI want to ask you about a comment that the Treasury Secretary made today. ïHe was asked if we should assume that the tax plan that the President is about to roll out will take eyect in 2018. ïHe said, and I’m quoting, “I think we’re looking at that.” ïSo my question to you is, would the President accept a tax proposal that deals with the timeline of implementation in 2018 but not 2017?

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

4/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 56 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïSo, Secretary Mnuchin also made it very clear that his goal is to have this wrapped up by August and implemented. ïThe question is, or what you’re referring to is

what year it actually takes place?

Q ï ïRight.

MR. SPICER: ïRight, so whether it’s retroactive to tax year 2017 or fiscal year '17. ïAnd I think as the details get --ï

Q ï ï(Inaudible.)

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, we’ll have more details on that as it moves forward. ïI think there’s two issues -- fiscal year '17 and calendar year '17. ïAnd, for taxpayers, it’s obviously calendar year 2017 that they’re probably most concerned with, and I think the President, as we work with Congress, will have those details to be able to flush out.

I want to go to our first Skype seat of the day. ïNeil Vigdor with Hearst Connecticut Media Group.

Q ï ïGood azernoon, Sean. ïThanks for taking my question. ïI appreciate it. ïConnecticut’s governor directed police chiefs across the state Wednesday to avoid taking any special action against undocumented immigrants, including honoring immigration detainer requests from ICE. ïWhat will the repercussions be for this state in terms of federal funding it receives from the Trump administration?

And secondly, does the President’s executive order on sanctuary cities apply to those that are undeclared sanctuary cities?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, Neil, I think there’s a couple things. ïThe idea that Governor Malloy would not want the law followed as enacted by Congress or by the Connecticut legislature in any fashion seems to be concerning, right? ïWhether you’re a governor or mayor or the President, laws are passed in this country and we expect people and our lawmakers and our law enforcement agencies to follow and adhere to the laws as passed by the appropriate level of government.

So it’s obviously concerning, I think, and it’s troubling that that’s the message that he would send to his people and to other governors. ïBecause we are a nation of laws, and I think that people need to understand that whether it’s the laws that he passes as the Governor of Connecticut or the laws that are passed through Congress and signed by the President, there’s a reason that our democracy works. ïIt’s because the people speak, our representatives at every level pass a law, and the executive in that particular branch of government signs or vetoes it, and then we live by those rules. ïAnd the idea that you can

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

5/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 57 of 205

decide which laws to agree or not to agree with, or follow or not follow, undermines our

entire rule of law.

And so I would suggest that that is not a great sign to be sending to the people of Connecticut and the people of this country, that a particular governor chooses not to follow the duly-passed laws of this nation. ï

With respect to sanctuary cities, I think this is an area that the American people by huge amounts support. ïThey recognize their tax dollars shouldn’t be spent supporting programs and activities to which people are not entitled to. ïAnd so I think the President has been very clear on this -- that if you are a sanctuary city, declared or undeclared, if you are providing benefits or services, we are going to do everything we can to respect taxpayers and ensure that your states follow the law.

April.
Q ï ïSean, on the bathroom issue, there was a diyerent comment from the President about, you know, if people like Caitlyn Jenner wanted to use this bathroom in Trump Tower, she could now. ïWhat’s happened?
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I think that’s -- so just to be clear, the President was asked -- at one point Caitlyn Jenner was in Trump Tower, and he said, that’s great. ïThat’s consistent with everything he’s said. ïIt’s a states' rights issue. ïAnd that’s entirely what he believes -- that if a state wants to pass a law or rule, or an organization wants to do something in compliance with the state rule, that’s their right. ïBut it shouldn’t be the federal government getting in the way of this. ï

I mean, if you look at this, the law that was passed in 1972 did not contemplate or consider this issue. ïNumber two, the procedure for this guidance letter that was done through the Obama administration was not properly followed. ïThere was no comment period. ïThere was no input from parents, teachers, students or administrators. ïNone. ï

So if we think about how this was implemented last administration, there was zero input, there was zero comment period oyered. ïTeachers and students never had any say in how this was implemented. ïNumber three, there’s a reason that the Texas court had this matter enjoined. ïIt’s because it didn’t follow the law and it had procedural problems.

Four, as I mentioned, it’s a states' rights issue. ïAnd then five is, I think that we do have to recognize that children do enjoy rights, from anti-bullying statutes that are in almost every state, and that there’s a diyerence between being compassionate for individuals and children who are struggling with something and wanting to make sure they’re protected, and how it’s being done. ïAnd I think that the President has a big heart, as we’ve talked

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

6/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 58 of 205

about in a lot of other issues, and there’s a big diyerence. ïPersonally, he addressed this

issue when it came up with respect to one of his properties.

But he also believes that that’s not a federal government issue. ïIt’s an issue lez to the states, and it’s an issue that -- I mean, there’s a reason in August of last year that the court enjoined this, because it hadn’t followed the law and it hadn’t -- the procedure, the comment period and the solicitation of opinions and ideas wasn’t followed. ïIt was jammed down the process.

And so we’re actually following the law on this one, and I think that’s the way it’s supposed to be done.

John.
Q ï ïIf I could just follow on what April said. ïThe Human Rights Campaign --ï
Q ï ïI wasn’t finished, I’m sorry. ï
Q ï ïWell, I’m following on your question. ïLet me follow --
Q ï ïI understand that, but --
MR. SPICER: ïWhy don’t we let April follow on and then we’ll get to John, Kristen and Brian.ï
Q ï ïYeah. ïSo I have one on -- I have something on another issue really fast, then John can do that. ïOn the HBCU executive order, we understand the executive order that’s coming out sometime later this month, it’s supposed to open -- you’re working out issues of opening an oyice specifically to take the HBCU initiative out of the Department of Education and bring it directly under the purview of the White House. ïWho will be heading that? ïHave you figured that out? ïHave you also figured out how you will build that oyice out? ïBecause from what I understand, that is one of the big pieces of this.
MR. SPICER: ïWell, respectfully, that’s why it hasn’t been issued yet. ïWe’re working it through the process. ïObviously, that is something that we’re committed to getting done by the end of Black History Month. ïSo our days are numbered, but there’s a commitment by the President and the stay to really focus on this issue and give it the proper respect that it deserves. ïSo if you’ll bear with us a couple more days, I promise you we’ll have more to say on that.
Q ï ïSo it will be a department with the full --ï
MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, I just want to be clear, I’m not going to get into the details. ïSort of my blanket statement on non-issued executive orders. ïBut I do know that there is a

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

7/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 59 of 205

commitment by the President and the stay that he has been very clear with us that he

wants that done by the end of this month for obvious reasons.

Now John.
Q ï ïLet me get back to where we were. ïThe Human Rights Campaign, in responding to rescinding the guidance last night, said that this is not a states' rights issue, it’s a civil rights issue, and therefore is in the purview of the federal government. ïDo you disagree that this a civil rights issue?
MR. SPICER: ïIt’s not a -- it’s a question of where it’s appropriately addressed. ïAnd I think there’s a reason -- like, we’ve got to remember, this guidance was enjoined last August by a court. ïIt hasn’t been enforced. ïThere was no comment period by anyone -- by the Human Rights Campaign, by teachers, parents, students. ïNobody had any input of this.

And it seems to me a little interesting that if this was any other issue, people would be crying foul that the process wasn’t followed. ïThe reality is, is that when you look at Title IX, it was enacted in 1972. ïThe idea that this was even contemplated at that is preposterous on its face. ïBut that doesn’t mean that the President -- the President obviously understands the issue and the challenges that especially young children face. ïHe just believes that this is a state issue that needs to be addressed by states, as he does with a lot of other issues that we’ve talked about.
And so this is -- we are a states' rights party. ïThe President on a lot of issues believes in these various issues being states' rights. ïI don’t see why this would be any diyerent. ïAnd again, if you go through it, it’s not just -- it’s how the guidance was issued, it’s the legal basis on which it was ordered. ïIt fell short on a lot of stuy.

It wasn’t us that did this; it was the court that stepped in and said that they hadn’t followed the procedure of the law back in August of last year and enjoin the case.
Q ï ïI understand all that, I’m just wondering if -- does the White House disagree with the position that this is a civil right?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think it’s not a question of whether it’s a civil right, it’s where is it appropriately addressed. ïAnd as I noted, it’s appropriately addressed at the state level.

Kelly.
Q ï ïCan I follow on that? ïSean, does the President believe, personally believe that any student who is transgender should be able to use the bathroom of their choice? ïHis personal belief?

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

8/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 60 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïThe President believes it’s a states' rights issue. ïAnd he’s not going to get into determining -- I understand what you’re asking, Kelly. ïAnd I think that, as April pointed out, when the issue came to one of his own properties he was very clear. ïBut again, what he

doesn’t want to do is force his issues or beliefs down -- he believes it’s a states' rights issue -

-

Q ï ïBut the public may want to know where the President is on this issue.

MR. SPICER: ïI understand that, and I think that he is very sympathetic to children who deal with that and that this is up to states and schools within a particular district to address how they want to accommodate that, and not sort of be prescriptive from Washington. ïThat’s what the President believes.

Zeke.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïYou mentioned that this order was enjoined by a court and there was criticism about the process. ïThat exact same criticism has been levied on the administration’s first executive order, on the travel ban. ïI mean, can you help us square the circle here? ïWhy are you relying on that same “enjoined by a federal court” criticism of the process for one but not the other?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think there’s a big diyerence. ïThere’s no way that you can read Title IX from 1972 -- anybody -- and say that that was even contemplated back then. ïIt just -- there’s nobody that is possibly suggesting that the law that was passed in 1972 did that.

Number two, there was zero comment period put forward on this guidance, which is in violation of how it was executed, okay? ïAnd so there’s a big diyerence -- hold on, hold, on let me answer the question, Zeke. ïThere is also a strong reading when you read 1182 U.S.
Code that it is very clear that the President does have the authority.

So they are very much apples and oranges issue. ïOne, it’s very clear that the President is
told by Congress in U.S. code that he has the authority to do what’s necessary to protect the American people. ïAnd there’s no way that anybody above a fizh grade reading level could interpret that diyerent. ïThere is a diyerence between looking at a statute from 1972 and saying that something was complicated back then. ï

Not only that -- again, it’s a multifaceted thing. ïWhen you look at how the guidance was issued, there was a zero comment period. ïNobody was able to weigh in on that situation back then. ïAnd so when you’re talking about forcing schools to make a huge
accommodation from the federal level, and schools, parents, teachers, kids were not able to have any input in that decision from Washington, I think it’s a very, very clear diyerence. ï

John Gizzi. ï

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

9/34

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 61 of 205

Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïJust going back two weeks, in a story that got relatively little attention

at the time -- Chuck Cooper, a very distinguished lawyer, asked that his name be withdrawn when he was on the periphery of being named U.S. Solicitor General. ïSo my question is a two-parter. ïFirst, can you confirm or deny the administration is now vetting Mr. Miguel

Estrada, who was a former nominee for the Court of Appeals, as Solicitor General before the

visa delay case gets to the Supreme Court?

And second, Mr. Cooper said that he did not want to go through the same experience that Jey Sessions, his good friend, did when he had the confirmation hearings and the vote in the Senate. ïDoes that make the President a little bit discouraged about getting the nominees he wants for some very important positions?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, thanks, John. ïAnd I’d say - on the first part, as you know -- and I’ll give you the same answer we give executive orders -- we don’t comment on personnel decisions until they’re made, until they’re finalized. ïSo I’ve got nothing for that.

On the second part, what I would say is that the President is very confident we have a deep bench of folks who -- during the transition, we talked about this -- a number of people who have expressed a huge interest in joining the President in fulfilling this agenda. ïAnd that list is robust and long.

However, that being said, I think for folks who have to go through the Senate confirmation and to watch what has happened to some of these fine individuals -- the delay tactics, the tearing apart of their personal lives -- it is discouraging for some of these people, I think, in terms of Mr. Cooper and others who are looking at the process saying, I would like to be part of this administration, help fulfill this vision and this agenda, but this is what I’m going to have go through.

So while this is somewhat of an isolated case, I definitely understand what he’s talking about here. ïAnd I think those are few and far between, but I think that when you realize what is happening largely at the expense of Senate Democrats, in terms of dragging these people through a very, very delayed and arduous process for purely political points, I think that there are some people who could look at the process and potentially say I don't want to serve.

Luckily, we've not come to that beyond a handful of folks. ïLargely, people have huge desire and are willing to make great sacrifice -- both financially and personally -- to serve in the administration because I think they understand what potential change this President is bringing to this country and to the city. ïBut I understand his point.

Q ï ïThis morning, the President talked about, as he ozen does when he talks about immigrants, he talks about really bad dudes. ï

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

10/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 62 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïYeah.

Q ï ïYou talked about precision. ïThe Homeland Security Secretary this morning insisted there won’t be mass deportation.ï

MR. SPICER: ïRight.ï

Q ï ïIs it the President’s intent or desire, as some advocates worry, that people who are here illegally with something as simple as a trayic violation, that those people will be subject to deportation? ïYes or no?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think everybody who is in this country for obvious reasons -- if you
overstay a visa, if you commit a crime, you can't -- by the very nature of you not being legal, you can be subject to deportation. ïThat's by definition. ïBeing in this country is a privilege, not a right, if you are a visitor. ïAnd I think we have a right to make sure that the people who are in this country are here for good and peaceful processes. ï

And as I’ve said over and over again, there is a big diyerence. ïThe President recognizes that there are millions of people in the country who are not here legally, and that we have to have a very systematic and pragmatic and methodical process of going through those individuals to make sure that the people who pose a threat to public safety or have a criminal record are the first that are gone.

What we've done -- just to be clear -- is to untie the hands of ICE and Border Patrol agents and say, your job is to enforce the law -- first and foremost to figure out who poses a threat to us. ïBut in the previous administration their hands had been tied. ïThere was exception azer exception azer exception. ïAnd the fact of the matter is, is that we have to -- we are a nation of laws, and we have to have a system of legal immigration that is respected.
So I’m not going to be prescriptive in terms of what ICE’s job is. ïBut needless to say, their job and their mission is to protect the country and to enforce our borders and our immigration laws. ïAnd the President has basically instructed them to carry out their mission. ïAnd so the priorities, as we've discussed over and over and over again, is to do that is in accordance with the law but also prioritizes those people that pose a threat.

I’m going to go to Roby Brock from the Talk Business & Politics in -- where is he from? ïArkansas. ï

Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïRoby Brock with Talk Business & Politics here in Arkansas, the home of the rowdiest town halls in the nation. ï

I have a question on medical marijuana. ïOur state voters passed a medical marijuana

amendment in November. ïNow we're in conflict with federal law, as many other states are.

ïThe ObEaXmH.a aTOdmMAiCnLiEsOtrDa-tBiAoLnL DkEinC.d of chose not to stric1t1ly enforce thNoOsReTHfeWdEeSTraIMl MmIGaRrAijNuTaRnIaGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

11/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 63 of 205

laws. ïMy question to you is: ïWith Jey Sessions over at the Department of Justice as AG,

what’s going to be the Trump administration’s position on marijuana legalization where it’s

in a state-federal conflict like this?

MR. SPICER: ïThanks, Roby. ïThere’s two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. ï

I think medical marijuana, I’ve said before that the President understands the pain and suyering that many people go through who are facing especially terminal diseases and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them. ïAnd that's one that Congress, through a rider in 2011 -- looking for a little help -- I think put in an appropriations bill saying the Department of Justice wouldn’t be funded to go azer those folks. ï
There is a big diyerence between that and recreational marijuana. ïAnd I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people. ïThere is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of the medical -- when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature. ï
So I think there’s a big diyerence between medical marijuana, which states have a -- the states where it’s allowed, in accordance with the appropriations rider, have set forth a process to administer and regulate that usage, versus recreational marijuana. ïThat’s a very, very diyerent subject.

Shannon. Q ï ïWhat does that mean in terms of policy? ïA follow-up, Sean. ïWhat does that mean in terms of policy? MR. SPICER: ïShannon. ïGlenn, this isn’t a TV program. ïWe’re going to -Q ï ïWhat is the Justice Department going to do? MR. SPICER: ïOkay, you don’t get to just yell out questions. ïWe’re going to raise our hands like big boys and girls. Q ï ïWhy don’t you answer the question, though? MR. SPICER: ïBecause it’s not your job to just yell out questions. ï

Shannon, please go.

Q ï ïOkay. ïWell, first, on the manufacturing summit, was the AFL-CIO invited? ïAnd then,

yeah, I dEXidH.waTOntMtAoCLfEoOllDo-wBALuLpDoECn. this medical marijua1n2a question.NïSOoRTiHsWthESeTfIeMdMeIGraRlANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

12/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 64 of 205

government then going to take some sort of action around this recreational marijuana in

some of these states?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think that’s a question for the Department of Justice. ïI do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it. ïBecause again, there’s a big diyerence between the
medical use which Congress has, through an appropriations rider in 2014, made very clear
what their intent was in terms of how the Department of Justice would handle that issue. ïThat’s very diyerent than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice I think will be further looking into. ï

I’m sorry, Shannon, what was the first part?
Q ï ïWas the AFL-CIO invited to the manufacturing meeting today with the CFOs? ïBecause they are part of this manufacturing --
MR. SPICER: ïRight. ïI think this was just focused on people who actually -- they were not, I don’t believe, part of this one. ïAs you know, that we’ve had union representation at other meetings. ïI think this was specifically for people who are hiring people and the impediments that they’re having to create additional jobs, hire more people. ïAnd obviously, while the President values their opinion -- and that’s why they’ve been involved in some of the past -- this was specifically a manufacturing -- people who hire people, who manufacture, who grow the economy, who grow jobs. ïAnd that is a vastly diyerent situation.

Andrei.

Q ï ïI specifically sat here next to John to have --

MR. SPICER: ïOne can see --

Q ï ïYou know me. ï(Laughter.) ïThank you. ïA question on Russia. ïSecretary Tillerson and General Dunford have had meetings with their Russian counterparts. ïIs the President pleased with the results of the meetings?

MR. SPICER: ïYes.

Q ï ïAnd what comes next?

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, both of them had an opportunity to meet with their counterparts in diyerent locations, ironically on the same day. ïI believe that was yesterday. ïAnd they both had very, very productive discussions. ïThe President was very pleased with the outcome of
that, and so I would refer you back to both General Dunford and Secretary Tillerson on those. ï

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

13/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 65 of 205

Q ï ïYou started discussing the where and when for the summit for the leaders meeting?

MR. SPICER: ïI don’t have any updates on that, but I’ll look into that. ï

Cecilia.
Q ï ïSean, I just want to follow up. ïI want to clarify, make sure I understand what you said. ïYou said, you will see greater enforcement of it?ï
MR. SPICER: ïI would refer you to the Department of Justice --
Q ï ïBut you said, you said there will be greater enforcement.
MR. SPICER: ïNo, no. ïI know. ïI know what I -- I think -- then that’s what I said. ïBut I think the Department of Justice is the lead on that. ïIt is something that you should follow up with them, but I believe that they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana versus --
Q ï ïOkay. ïAnd my real question if you don’t mind.
MR. SPICER: ïThat first one was pretty real.
Q ï ïIvanka Trump was in the White House today for a meeting on human trayicking. ïShe had this meeting on CEOs. ïWe saw her in a smaller session here at the White House today. ïWhat exactly is her role here?
MR. SPICER: ïI think her role is to be helpful and provide input on a variety of areas that she has deep, passionate concerns about, especially in the area of women in the workforce and empowering women. ïShe is someone who has a lot of expertise and wants to oyer that, especially in the area of trying to help women. ïShe understands that firsthand. ïAnd I think because of the success that she’s had, her goal is to try to figure out -- and the understanding that she has a businesswoman -- to use her expertise and understanding to empower and help women have the same kind of opportunity and success that she’s had. ïSo --ï
Q ï ïBut still not a formal role?
MR. SPICER: ïNo, nothing more than you’ve seen now. ïI think, last night, the meeting that she had in Baltimore was one that was done on her own. ïThere’s areas that she’s cared very passionately about before her time in the White House, or before her father coming to the White House, rather. ïAnd now that her father is in the White House, she continues to seek a platform that helps empower and liz up women, and give them opportunities and think of ways that they can be --

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

14/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 66 of 205

Q ï ïSean, thanks. ïOn the human trayicking meeting today, the President said, well, when

you talk about solving this kind of problem, that’s a nice word, but it’s really -- he suggested that, more likely, he could just help out on that problem. ïWhat’s his definition of success in this? ïWhat’s his goal? ïIs he looking at stronger criminal penalties?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, Dave, I think that’s, as I read out earlier, that the President understands that this is a serious problem both for adults, but particularly for children who are being sold both domestically and internationally, and it’s why we brought these groups in. ïIt’s to make sure that we figure out how do we make that number as close to zero as possible and that we institute policies both domestically, but then abroad, and working with our partners to figure out how do we combat the trayicking of people. ï

So it’s things that we can be forceful in terms of the rhetoric that the President uses, but also the enforcement tools that he uses both domestically and internationally.

Trey.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïHas the President been briefed at all on the situation at Standing Rock? ïAnd is he concerned that a stand-oy with protesters could slow down his executive orders on pipelines?
MR. SPICER: ïOur team has been involved with both the tribe and the governor there, and so we are not only -- we are constantly in touch with them. ïAnd I think we feel very confident that we will move forward to get the pipeline moving. ïAnd so we’ll have a further update on that, but I think we're in constant contact with the oyicials there.ï

Kristen.
Q ï ïSean, thank you. ïTwo topics I’d like to ask, but I wanted to start oy by following on the transgender directive. ïEight-two percent of transgender children report feeling unsafe at school. ïSo isn’t the President leaving some of these children open to vulnerable -- to being bullied at school?
MR. SPICER: ïNo. ïI mean, there are bullying laws and policies in place in almost every one of these schools.
Q ï ïTransgender children say their experience is --ï
MR. SPICER: ïBut I don't think -- hold on --
Q ï ï-- not being able to use the bathroom that they feel comfortable using because of vulnerability to bullying.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

15/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 67 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïBut again, you're missing the point here, Kristen. ïThe President said literally it

should be a state decision. ïHe respects the decision of the state. ïSo therefore --ï

Q ï ïSo respecting kids is a states’ rights issue?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, that's not -- you're trying to make an issue out of something that doesn't exist. ïIt was the court who stopped this in August of last year. ïSo where were the questions last year in August about this? ïIt wasn’t implemented correctly, legally, and the
procedure wasn’t followed because the court found, at the time, that it didn't have the authority to do that. ïSo you’re asking us why we're following the law that wasn’t followed. ïAnd the reality is --

Q ï ïWell, I'm asking you why you're reversing the Obama directive --ï

MR. SPICER: ïHold on. ïNo, no, we're not reversing it. ïHold on. ïWe're not reversing it. ïThat is a misinterpretation of the scenario. ïThe court stopped it. ïIt enjoined it in August of last year because it wasn’t properly drazed, and it didn't follow the procedures, and there was no legal basis for it in a law that was instituted in 1972.ï

So hold on -- for you to use those terms, frankly, doesn't reflect what the situation actually is and how it happened. ïThat's just -- so to talk about us reversing something that was stopped by the courts.

Q ï ïI understand that --

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, but --ï

Q ï ï-- but you're sending a message --

MR. SPICER: ïNo, we're not. ïWe're basically saying that it’s a states’ rights issue. ïIf a state choses to do it, as I mentioned to April, when this circumstance came up at one of the President’s own properties, he was very clear about his position on this. ïSo for you to turn around and say what message is the President saying, where was the message when he sent it last year? ïI think the message shows that he’s a guy with a heart that understands the trouble that many people go through.

But he also believes that the proper legal recourse for this is with the states. ïHe believes in the states’ ability to determine what’s right for their state versus another state. ï

Q ï ïI understand what you're saying. ïBut the LGBTQ community yesterday said they felt --ï

MR. SPICER: ïI understand what --ï

Q ï ï-- that what they perceiving is that those kids are not being respected. ïï

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

16

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

16/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 68 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïBut there’s a diyerence what people may or may not feel and the legal process

and the law. ïAnd the law right now doesn't allow for it under Title IX that was passed in

1972. ïAnd the procedure wasn’t followed. ïThe court saw this in August of last year for a

reason. ïAnd all we're doing is saying that the proper place for this is in the states.

And so for you to suggest what message is this sending, it’s very simple: ïthat it’s a states’ rights issue, and the states should enact laws that reflect the values, principles, and will of the people in their particular state. ïThat's it, plain and simple.

Q ï ïMoving on to Obamacare very quickly, former House Speaker John Boehner predicted that a full repeal and replace of Obamacare -- his words -- “is not going to happen.” ïHe went on to say, “Most of the framework of the Ayordable Care Act, it’s going to be there.” ïDo you think that he has a point? ïAre you going to --

MR. SPICER: ïWell, no, I think -- look, I think what we're going to end up with is something that I’ve talked about over and over again. ïWe're going to end up with a more accessible
plan that will allow people to see more doctors, have more providers, and drive costs down. ïThose are the two guiding principles that we're going to have in what the President is going to work with Congress to put forward on. ïThat's it, plain and simple.

Yes.
Q ï ïSean, on roads and highways in the United States, in many places around the country potholes and other issues are ayecting the way in which Americans travel. ïAnd the President has said he would fix these issues during the campaign. ïWhat is the status on that? ïAnd has the President spoken to heads of DOT or other people?ï
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think the President is starting to address that through the budget process we talked about yesterday. ïIt will be out in mid-March. ïAnd so the infrastructure projects and priorities that the President has talked about -- whether it’s air control, and our airports, or the roads and bridges -- will be something that he’s going to work with DOT, but also talk about in his budget. ïAnd you’ll see more in his joint address to Congress.ï

With that, Laurel Staples of KECI-NBC in Montana.

Q ï ïMontana has hundreds of miles of border with Canada. ïAnd according to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, almost 1 million people come across that border into Montana each year. ïWhat are the administration’s plans to increase security on the Canadian border? ïAnd does the administration have any plans to build a wall there? ï(Laughter.) ï

MR. SPICER: ïWell, we're obviously concerned -- thank you -- at all sorts of immigration in

this country, whether it’s from our northern border or our southern border. ïI think the

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

17/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 69 of 205

President understands that our southern border is where we have more of a concern in

terms of the number of people and the type of activity that's coming over there in terms of the cartels and drug activity. ïBut that doesn't mean that we're not paying attention to our northern border, as well. ïAnd we will continue to both monitor and take steps necessary at

our northern border to ensure the safety of all Americans.

Yes, sir. Q ï ïOne question on the South China Sea and a follow-up on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

This week was the first week, I believe, that the Trump administration launched freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. ïCan you give us a sense of how frequently you are going to be doing those?

And then on the Dakota Access Pipeline, a few weeks ago President Trump said he would try to negotiate a solution between the Standing Rock Sioux and Energy Transfer Partners. ïWhy hasn’t the President intervened and tried to initiate those negotiations yet?
MR. SPICER: ïSo on the latter, our team has been in contact with all the parties involved. ïThey have been working and communicating back and forth. ïSo if we have an update on that -- but there has been work at the stay level between the parties.

And then on the second -- on the first part, I’ve got no further update in terms of the frequency by which we will have stuy.

Alexis.
Q ï ïSean, in the Reuters interview with the President, he described again his interest in seeing the nuclear arsenal expand in the United States. ïCan you describe what it is that the President has in mind -- the timeframe and how he would like to pursue that?
MR. SPICER: ïYes, let’s just be clear. ïHe didn't -- what he was very clear on is that the United States will not yield its supremacy in this area to anybody. ïThat's what he made very clear in there. ïAnd that if other countries have nuclear capabilities, it will always be the United States that has the supremacy and commitment to this.
Obviously, that's not what we're seeking to do. ïThe question that was asked was about other people growing their stockpiles. ïAnd I think what he has been clear on is that our goal is to make sure that we maintain America’s dominance around the world, and that if other countries cloud it, we don't sit back and allow them to grow theirs.

Francesca.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

18

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

18/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 70 of 205

Q ï ïSean, a domestic policy question and then a foreign policy question, if you will. ïYou said

yesterday that the President had named a task force on the voter fraud probe. ïWhen did he

name that task force specifically?ï

MR. SPICER: ïI think two weeks ago he announced that Vice President Pence would lead that task force, and that the Vice President and his team were starting to look at members to do that.

Q ï ïSo you were referring to the interview in which he said there would be a task force.
MR. SPICER: ïThat's right.ï
Q ï ïNot that something has happened since then.
MR. SPICER: ïThat's correct.ï
Q ï ïOkay. ïAnd then on foreign policy, the President had said in his Saturday campaign speech that the Gulf States would be paying for that safe zone in Syria. ïWhich Gulf States was he referring to? ïHave any committed to paying for that?

MR. SPICER: ïSo if you look at the readouts that he’s had with several of the foreign leaders that is brought up and mentioned in almost every one of them. ïAnd I think he’s talked about the financing of the safe zones and the commitment that they need to make to those. ïAnd I think by and large, we've had widespread commitment. ïWhen we have an update on - and I think that's an issue that's going to be ongoing at the Secretary of State level, as well, where you saw Secretary Tillerson follow up on that with numerous folks.

We will have further updates on the funding of safe zones as we go forward. ïBut there has been a general commitment by most of these heads of government to share in the President’s commitment to help fund these things.

Can I go to Steve Gruber of WJIM in Michigan?
Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïI greatly appreciate it. ïI’d like to talk to you more about tax policy, if I may. ïPresident Trump, of course, on the campaign trail talked a lot about tax policy and tax reform. ïThat hasn’t happened yet, as we know. ïBut I want to talk about something diyerent. ïThat's the border adjustability tax. ïWith the manufacturers that were at the White House again today, states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, others have a great concern about this tax, and there seems to be a disconnect between some of the CEOs, some of the Republicans on Capitol Hill and the President as to whether or not this is appropriate. ï

And I guess the question is: ïCould this tax have a chilling eyect on manufacturing at a time

when

pElaXHce. s

TliOkMeAOChLEioO,Da-BnAdLLMDEicCh. igan,

and

the

Upper

1M9 idwest

are

trying to jumpstart the
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

19/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 71 of 205

economy with manufacturing jobs? ïI wish for you to clarify, if you could, the President’s

position.

MR. SPICER: ïYes, Steve, thank you. ïI think the President has been very clear from the beginning that there is no tax if companies manufacture in the United States. ïWe are one of only a handful of countries that doesn't tax the imports that come into our country. ïAlmost
every other country operates their tax code under that system.

And so what happens is we have a system by which companies abroad can send their products -- tax our products going into their country and institute an import tax, and then their products come into the United States with no import tax -- which, frankly, gives a disincentive to companies to stay in the United States, to manufacture in the United States, to hire in the United States. ïAnd it tilts the field against the American worker.

And so the President is looking at tax policy that encourages manufacturing and job creation in the United States. ïAnd if you think about it --ï
Q ï ïSo where is he on this border adjustability tax? ï
MR. SPICER: ïHold on.
Q ï ïWhere is he on this tax specifically?ï
MR. SPICER: ïI understand that. ïAnd I think that what he is doing is he met yesterday with his team on the budget. ïHe’s talked to Secretary Mnuchin and others who are working on a comprehensive tax reform plan. ïAnd remember, Steve, this isn’t something that's been done since 1986. ïAnd so as we look at it, part of that is to make sure that we lower our corporate tax rate, that we make it more attractive to manufacture and grow jobs in the United States, to make our companies more competitive with companies overseas that, frankly, have better tax treatment than our own companies who stay in the United States. ïSo creating more of a playing field that encourages manufacturing and growing and creating in the United States. ï

But make no mistake, if a company is in the United States already and expanding in the United States, it will be only to their benefit. ïActually, if you think about it right now, the way the current tax code works, it almost incentivizes companies from leaving the United States, manufacturing, and expanding overseas, and then sending their goods and services back to the United States, which undermines our own economy, it undermines our workers.

Q ï ïBut the question is about components coming back in the United States being manufactured.

MR. SPICER: ïI understand, Steve. ïOkay, I know that you're on the Skype, but we only do like

one or tEwXHo. foTlOloMwA-CuLpEOsD. -ïBALL DEC.

20

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

20/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 72 of 205

But the answer is, is that he’s working towards comprehensive tax reform, and we’ll have a

plan out within the next few weeks that will address that.

Yes.
Q ï ïOn the transgender guidance, the administration not only rescinded it, but sent a letter to the Supreme Court informing them about the change as they consider a related case. ïDoes the termination of the guidance present an administration position on the way the Supreme Court should rule?
MR. SPICER: ïI’m sorry, on? ïWell, obviously, we’re -- I’m sorry -- removing the guidance clearly does. ïThe guidance that was put forward by the Obama administration, which clearly hadn’t been done in a proper way in terms of how they solicited, or, rather, didn’t solicit comments -- the guidance it puts forward obviously sends a signal to the Court on where the administration stands on this issue.
Q ï ïCan I ask you about Syria? ïTwo quick questions. ïFirst, the talks have started again, peace talks in Geneva. ïThe man convening them, Stayan de Mistura, says he’s not detected a clear strategy on the political track from the administration. ïSo what is the President’s thinking on that? ïAnd in particular, what’s his thinking on the future of President Assad, whether he can stay on in a transition or --ï
MR. SPICER: ïI will refer you to the State Department on the status of the talks.
Q ï ïBut the overall strategy comes from here. ï
MR. SPICER: ïRight, I understand that. ïAnd that’s one of the things that the President, whether it’s safe zones or how we deal with Syria and the problems that --
Q ï ïWhat's the President thinking on Assad’s future? ïJust the key points.
MR. SPICER: ïI understand that, thank you.
Q ï ïOne other question then on Syria, if you don’t mind. ïThe fall of al-Bab in northern Syria, an important development on the battlefield, creates some space in that town that’s fallen to the Turks and opposition. ïIs that the sort of space that the President would like to see a safe zone?
MR. SPICER: ïI don’t -- we’re not trying to be prescriptive right now in terms of the geographic location of a safe zone. ïIt’s something that -- right now, the President’s goal is to get commitments from other world leaders, both in terms of the funding and the commitment to share in how we do that.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

21

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

21/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 73 of 205

So I don’t want to get -- we’re not looking to be prescriptive today in how it’s done. ïI think,

overall, we need a greater commitment in the region to make sure that people are committed to a strategy and to safe zones to allow that to stop some of the human suyering that’s going on and create -- while the rest of the conflict ensues. ïAnd I think that we’ve got

to dual-track this -- deal with the conflict as a whole and how we address it, how we deal

with ISIS in combatting it, but then we also have to -- there’s a humanitarian piece to this as

well with respect to the safe zones.

And I think that we were looking at both pieces of this as well.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïSince the election, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has expressed some disquiet about pulling out of the Paris agreement on climate change. ïAnd the President has also heard from some world leaders about that. ïCan you tell us, is the President still committed to pulling out of the Paris agreement on climate change?
MR. SPICER: ïI think I will leave that to Secretary Tillerson. ïThat’s a conversation that he’s having with him as far as where we are on that.
Q ï ïSean, thank you very much. ïI just have a follow-up to the Syria question first. ïDo you have any timeline when it comes to when he wants to see those safe zones actually being built? ïAnd I wanted to go back to the executive order on immigration. ïYou’ve talked about these dual-tracks, where you’re going to be doing the new executive order but also continuing to fight that in court. ïCan you give us a status update on where that legal fight is and what we should see happening?
MR. SPICER: ïSo with respect to the executive order, there are several courts that this is being fought in -- 10 or so -- and we continue to deal with that in all of those venues. ïAnd then again, I guess, the only way to say this is, then obviously on the dual-track side we have the additional executive order that we’ve talked about earlier that will come out and further address the problems.

We continue to believe that the issues that we face specifically in the 9th district -- 9th Circuit, rather, that we will prevail on, on the merits of that. ïBut on the other challenges
that have come and the other venues and the others -- that we feel equally confident, as we did in Massachusetts and other venues. ïSo it’s not a single-track system. ï

And I’m sorry, I know you --

Q ï ïHave you made a decision yet about the Supreme Court taking it there? ïAnd then the other question was on the safe zones and the timeline.

MR. SPICER: ïSo with respect to the Supreme Court, I mean, we’ve got to continue to work

this through the process. ïSo right now it’s at the 9th Circuit. ïThat’s the primary problem

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

22

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

22/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 74 of 205

that we are addressing. ïAnd then we don’t have any timeline that I can announce today on

Syrian safe zones.

Q ï ïI just want to follow up to this morning’s meeting. ïAnd the President said that he gave authorization to a couple of countries to buy military equipment from the United States. ïWhich countries was he referring to? ïAnd has he gone to Congress to ask for permission to do this?

MR. SPICER: ïWe’ll follow up and get a list for you on that. ï Jey.

Q ï ïSean, if I could ask again about the delay of the executive order until the next week. ïIs the administration still trying to craz its legal argument to this to withstand scrutiny, or why again the delay? ïI’m not sure I understand --

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, and I think I asked and answered this earlier. ï

Q ï ïSorry, I don’t understand the delay.

MR. SPICER: ïOkay, then I’ll explain it to you. ïI think the President this time -- we were very careful to understand what the court’s concerns were and address them in the follow-up executive order. ïWith respect to when we’re going to announce it, part of this is to make sure that we work with the appropriate departments and agencies on the implementation of it to make sure that it is executed and it continues to be executed in a flawless manner, and that it meets the intent that it would serve.

We understand the challenges that may come, and so we want to do this in a manner that makes sure that the Hill, other members of Congress, the appropriate agencies and departments are fully ready to implement this when it’s issued. ïAnd so that’s it. ïThere’s really nothing more to it.

Q ï ïThere also is some concern -- if I can follow up -- there also is concern inside the Justice Department and in Homeland Security by some oyicials this azernoon that we’re reporting that the White House is looking for them to help build this legal argument, to find a conclusion here.

MR. SPICER: ïNo, that’s not -- basically, you’re saying that we did our due diligence. ïWe looked to the departments to ask them to review certain things. ïSo last week it was we rushed stuy; this week, you’re saying that we are taking our time and --ï

Q ï ïHas it been more diyicult than you thought it would be?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, that’s not true. ïI don’t think so. ïAnd I think you using continued unnamed

sourcesEX--HI.

thTiOnMkAiCt LaEcOtDu-aBAllLyL

iDsEaC.--

it

will

be

implemen2t3ed

flawlessly because NORTHWEST

we’ve done the
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

23/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 75 of 205

right thing and gone to these individuals, sought feedback and guidance, and done this in

an unbelievably comprehensive way to ensure that departments and agencies that are going to be executing and implementing this fully are aware of what’s happening. ïBut this has been done in a very, very comprehensive way. ï

Yeah, sorry.
Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïMelanie Arter, CNSNews.com. ïFormer Labor Secretary nominee Andrew Puzder admitted that for a few years he unwittingly employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. ïIs this administration committed to holding employers accountable when they employ illegal aliens? ïAnd how does the administration plan to do so?
MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think that was -- that issue was something that Mr. Puzder was very forthcoming on. ïAnd when he recognized the situation that had occurred, he paid all the appropriate taxes and tried to help the individual go through the proper process. ïAnd so, yeah, we’re going to continue to make sure that we hold individuals in compliance with the law. ïAnd he did the right thing then, but whether it’s companies or individuals, I think, we are committed to making sure that people do what’s right.ï

Yes, ma’am.

Q ï ïVeronica Clearly, with Fox 5. ïI have two questions. ïJanet Evancho -- she sang the National Anthem -- she requested a meeting with the President. ïHer sister is transgender. ïIs he going to take that meeting, or meet with anyone from the transgender community during this conversation?

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think the President would be welcome to meet with her.

Q ï ïThe second question -- second question. ïSteve Bannon today called the media the opposition party. ïLast week, there was lots of conversation about the fake news and us being the enemy of the people. ïSome have said that this is really just a branding of the media, where he did that in the primaries, branding “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted”. ïIs this --

MR. SPICER: ïWell, no, that was the President. ïJust to --

Q ï ïRight, of course. ïBut is this a branding strategy to --ï

MR. SPICER: ïNo, I think that’s what Steve believes.

Q ï ïBut this is real.

MR. SPICER: ïAbsolutely, of course, it’s real. ïI don’t think he’d go out -- Steve has been very clear about his position on the media and how he believes it distorts things. ïSo I don’t think

there’s --

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

24

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

24/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 76 of 205

Q ï ïFrom the whole administration?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no. ïHold on. ïI just said that that is what Steve’s view is. ïHe’s made it several times, and I think he’s very clear on that.

Sarah.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïBack to the border adjustment tax. ïPresident Trump has told Reuters that he does support some form of a border tax. ïHow does the President respond to critics that are saying the border adjustment tax will be passed on to lower-income and middleclass families in the form of higher prices for goods and higher prices for gas?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think if you look at holistically -- I mean, the first thing to understand is that there is no tax if you’re manufacturing in the United States, so there can be no higher cost. ïBut if you think about it right now, we have to look at this in a holistic way, which is, when a company chooses to leave our country and shed American jobs so they can move overseas, and then sell back to us at a lower price, there’s a big cost that comes to our economy and to our workers. ïAnd so we’ve got to look at this comprehensively. ï

But if a company chooses to stay and grow in the United States, hire more people, it actually will be a net savings, if you think about it, because it will be the companies who are overseas, who have chosen to move out of the country who will face a higher cost under these kind of plans. ï
And that’s a big diyerence. ïIt will actually benefit consumers, benefit workers, and benefit out economy. ïAnd that’s -- when you really think about the economic impact about that, that benefits our economy, it helps our American workers, it grows more jobs, it grows the manufacturing base. ïAnd again, we are probably one of only a handful of developed countries that don’t have a tax system that looks at this. ïAnd so right now, it’s America and American workers and American manufacturing that are the disadvantage of the current regulatory and tax system, not the other way around.
Thank you, guys. ïHave a great day. ïWe’ll touch base tomorrow in some way. ïI will see you then. ïTune in to CPAC to see the President.
ENDï 3:52 P.M. EST #15-02/23/2017

¬ŧ­ 

HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

25/34

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/230/2301/71, 31/517whitePhoausgee. o1v 77 of 205
SA. ov Privac Polic Cop ri ht Polic

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

26

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/23/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2232017-15

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

26/34

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 178 of 205
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 79 of 205

the WHITE HOUSE

Í

From the Press Oyice
Speeches Remarks Press Brie ings Statements Releases Presidential Actions Le islation Nominations Appointments Disclosures

The White House Oyice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

February 21, 2017

Press Brieng by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/21/2017, #13

James S. Brady Press Briefing Roomï

1:42 P.M. EST
MR. SPICER: ïHey, good azernoon, everyone. ïIt's been a little while. ïHope you missed me. ï(Laughter.) ï

Q ï ïYou missed us?

MR. SPICER: ïAbsolutely. ïWe’ve got a lot to talk about today, so let’s get right to it.

First oy, I want to acknowledge the tragic plane crash that occurred in Australia that took

the lives of five individuals, including four Americans. ïThe President’s thoughts and prayers

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

1/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 80 of 205

are with the families of the victims, and the U.S. embassy and consulate are ready to provide

necessary and appropriate assistance.

Moving on, the President was honored to announce that Lieutenant General McMaster will be his National Security Advisor. ïGeneral McMaster served this nation in the United States Army for over three decades, including during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Desert Storm.

The President met with many distinguished and qualified candidates for the position, and as he has said that he will continue to consider many of them for other positions within the administration. ïHe is especially pleased that Lieutenant General Kellogg will stay on as the National Security Council Chief of Stay. The President is proud to welcome General McMaster to the team where he will have full authority to structure the oyice to his desires to best serve its ultimate mission, which is to protect the American interests at home and abroad.

This morning, Secretary Kelly and the Department of Homeland Security released memos
regarding the implementation of two of the President’s executive orders that are designed to protect the homeland. ïThese two memos provide explicit guidance to DHS stay on how
to carry out two executive orders signed by the President on January 25th -- one dealing with interior enforcement and one dealing with border security. ïPerhaps most critically, the President is empowering DHS to carry out the immigration laws currently on the books. ï

Of course, DHS gave a full briefing on these memos this morning, but just to briefly summarize a few of the facts: ïThe memo regarding the executive order “Enhancing Public
Safety in the Interior of the United States” outlines several practices and policies in order to strengthen the eyicient and faithful execution of this country’s immigration laws. ïThat includes hiring more ICE agents and oyicers, as well as additional mission support and legal stay necessary to support their activities. ïThis memo also directs the establishment of the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Oyice within ICE, fulfilling another major campaign promise of the President. ïThis oyice will facilitate the engagement with victims
and their families to ensure that their questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement eyorts are addressed.ï

The memo regarding the executive order “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” outlines the steps that DHS will take to secure the nation’s southern border, prevent further illegal immigration, and to repatriate illegal immigrants swizly, consistently, and humanely. ïThis includes immediately identifying and allocating all sources of available funding for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a wall along our southern border and hiring of additional personnel, including 5,000 additional CBP border agents.ï

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

2/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 81 of 205

Again, I would refer you to DHS for further comment on these specific memos. ïThere are

factsheets and Q&As on the DHS website that address many of the intricacies in areas within

each of these executive orders that you might have questions on.

Also, this weekend, the President had calls with the President of Panama and the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. ïReadouts of those calls have both been provided.

The President’s team this weekend also had a very productive meeting on the President’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, and ensure that it is replaced with a system that works for all Americans.

Back to the President’s schedule today, in honor of Black History Month, the President started his day by visiting the National Museum of African American History and Culture. ïThe museum opened last September and has quickly become one of Washington’s mostvisited attractions.

The President was joined by a group of individuals that included his daughter, Ivanka; Dr. Ben Carson and his wife; Senator Tim Scott; Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; museum director Lonnie Bunch; Dr. David Skorton, who is the Secretary of the Smithsonian, as well as others.

The President commented several times during his tour about how impressed he was with the museum. ïSome of the exhibits that he was particularly drawn to included the section on Harriet Tubman, which featured a shawl that was given to her by Queen Victoria in the late 1800s; the section of the museum that featured the courageous contribution of African Americans that have made to the United States military. ïAnd the President was particularly pleased by the Muhammad Ali exhibit with the quote, “I shook up the world” prominently displayed.

The President also enjoyed viewing for the first time with Dr. and Mrs. Carson the exhibit dedicated to his extraordinary life. ïSimilarly, Alveda King, who had never viewed the museum’s exhibit on her uncle, the President was honored that he was able to share this experience with the two of them specifically.

The President further expressed his appreciation for the tour, and said he looks forward to returning again. ïHis desire is to honor the immense contributions of courageous African American leaders throughout our history by building a more unified country, dedicated to liberty and justice.

This azernoon, the President will have a routine, classified National Security Council briefing in the Situation Room, in addition to his Presidential Daily Briefing, which he received earlier this morning.ï

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

3/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 82 of 205

Then, this evening the President will have dinner with Vice President Pence. ïI’m sure that they will discuss the Vice President's recent trip to Europe. ïThe Vice President was an

incredible representative for our nation and the President during his time, where he

reiterated our support for our European allies in unified pursuit of the noble ideals of

freedom, democracy, and justice, and the rule of law and discussing how to do more to encourage all NATO allies to meet their financial obligations and commitments. ï

During his speech before the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, the Vice President conveyed the administration’s unwavering commitment to Europe’s peace and prosperity, especially remembering the tens of thousands of Americans who gave their lives to defend those ideals during both World War I and II. ïThese shared sacrifices are the backbone of our alliance and our mission of security through strength.
During his time in Munich, the Vice President also met with nine world leaders. ïThe Vice President and these leaders discussed the issues most pressing to them, including the escalating violence in eastern Ukraine and the role of NATO in the fight against ISIS. ïThe Vice President also met in Brussels with President of Tusk -- Vice President Tusk of the Council of the European Union and NATO Secretary -- the NATO Secretary General.ï
As a candidate for oyice, President Trump actually called attention repeatedly to the fact that for too long, many of our NATO allies have not been sharing the financial burden. ïThe President looks forward to working closely with NATO to advance our shared objectives. ïA strong NATO means a safer world. ïAnd the United States looks forward to working with our partners in NATO to achieve just that.

Looking ahead to the President’s upcoming schedule -- tomorrow, he will meet with Secretary of State Tillerson, fresh oy his trip to Germany for the G20 Foreign Ministers Summit. ïThey'll discuss the President’s foreign policy agenda and the Secretary’s upcoming
trip to Mexico.

Thursday morning, he'll have a listening session regarding job creation in the manufacturing sector with CEOs and business leaders from diyerent industries.
On Friday, he'll deliver remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference. ïAnd we are just one week out today from the President’s Joint Address to Congress.ï
The President will continue to work closely with his team to craz a speech that lays out his ambitious policy agenda that will benefit all Americans. ïPlans are currently in the works for pre- and post-address activities for the President and his stay. ïAnd we'll have more updates as the week goes on.

Before I take your questions, I want to address the recent threats and acts of vandalism on

Jewish

EcXoHm. mTOunMiAtCyLcEeOnD-tBeArLsLtDhErCo.ughout

the

country.

ïT4 he

President said this NORTHWEST

morning -- I just
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

4/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 83 of 205

want to reiterate -- "The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community centers are

horrible and painful, and a very sad reminder of the work that we must do" -- excuse me -"the work that must be done to root outïhate and prejudice and evil."

With that, I’ll take some of your questions. ïJim Stinson.ï

Q ï ïSean, thank you. ïI was curious if the President regrets or wants to clarify his characterization -- by the way, I have two questions -- of the media as an "enemy of the American people."

MR. SPICER: ïI think the President has been very clear that certain outlets have gone out of their way to not represent his record accurately, and it is a concern to him.

And I think some reporters -- he has deep respect for the First Amendment, for the role of the press -- I’ve addressed this multiple times in the past. ïHe has a healthy respect for the press. ïBut I think that it’s a two-way street, as I’ve also said before, and I think that the President understands that certain outlets have gone out of their way to not be completely accurate and fair in their coverage of what’s going on.
Q ï ïSpeaking of the media, I’ve noticed two times in the last week that you’ve been directly contradicted by two members of the media, one of them Bill Maher of HBO, who said that in front of guests at Mar-a-Lago, the President was briefed on the classified North Korean situation.
MR. SPICER: ïSay that again, I’m sorry.
Q ï ïThe President and the Prime Minister of Japan were briefed in front of guests --
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I didn’t say that.
Q ï ïNo, no, no, this is what was being said on HBO, that the President and the Prime Minister were briefed on classified information in front of guests at Mar-a-Lago. ïI just want to clarify, did that happen? ïDid they --
MR. SPICER: ïNo. ïNo. ïI think I walked through this timeline before, Jim. ïAnd it’s amazing -a photo gets put out, the President has got a piece of paper, and the immediate conclusion is he’s got to be talking about classified information.

The President was briefed on the situation in North Korea prior to the dinner, in a SCIF, that’s at Mar-a-Lago. ïHe went and had dinner. ïHe discussed the logistics of the press

conference, which I’ve talked to you all before -- there was a question as to where to hold the press conference. ïThey had a discussion about the logistics of it. ïAnd subsequent to

that dinner, he was briefed again in a SCIF with updates on the situation in North Korea.

ïThat’s

EitX,Hp. laTinO

MaAnCdLEsOimD-pBAleLL.

ï
DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

5/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 84 of 205

But to your first question, I think that it’s amazing that the immediate jump of conclusion to several outlets was, well, there’s a piece of paper, it must be classified. ïI don’t -- it’s amazing to see that and to see people jump to that conclusion that he’s surrounded by his stay and

members of the Japanese delegation, the conclusion is they must be doing something nefarious or wrong. ïIn fact, he followed every procedure that’s laid out.

And I think in some cases, it’s disheartening to realize that those are the kind of immediate conclusions that somebody jumps to. ïSo when you talk about coverage, we have a free press. ïWe have the right for people to say and do what they believe. ïBut at some point, it is incumbent upon people to try to get it right. ïAnd in that case, it wasn’t even attempted. ïIt
was a jump to conclusion by many to say that there must be something else going on when,
in fact, we were able to provide a very, very clear tick-tock as to what had happened in that.

Jessica.
Q ï ïSean, a question about the resignation of 10 people on the Asian American Council. ïThat happened last week. ïAnd in the letter, they said in part, “We can no longer serve a President whose policies aim to create outcomes that are diametrically opposite to our principles, goals and charge.” ïFirst of all, what’s the White House’s reaction? ïAnd do you plan to appoint your own members to this council?
MR. SPICER: ïThose members of that council were political appointees of the Obama administration. ïTheir terms were set to expire this year. ïSo it’s not surprising in the sense that they were appointees of Barack Obama. ïThey were going to have their terms expire.
Q ï ïBut in terms of --

But again, but -- I get it, but most political appointees from other agencies or whatever would automatically resign because of the term of these individuals, they would carry through until later in the year. ïBut I don’t think it’s surprising that people who were appointed by Barack Obama to fulfill his agenda suddenly understand that there is a new administration in town and didn’t want to stay on board.
But we will make sure that we appoint people to this task force. ïIt’s important. ïIt’s something that’s provided guidance to multiple presidents in the past, and we will continue to do that.

Shannon.
Q ï ïOn the statement today about the anti-Semitic acts, what specifically is the President going to do to address that issue? ïAnd, along those lines, there were reports earlier on that he was considering changing the mandate of this countering violent extremism program to

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

6/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 85 of 205

focus just on Islamic extremist groups. ïIs he still considering that, or would he also leave

the scope of the program to also consider --

MR. SPICER: ïAre you talking about the travel executive order?

Q ï ïNo, no, no, this is the countering violent extremism program that --

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves there. ïThere’s nothing to announce on that front. ïAnd secondly, to the first part of your question, I think the President is going to do what he’s talked about since election night. ïIt’s through deed and
action, talk about how we can unify this country and speak out against hate, anti-Semitism, racism. ïAnd he’s going to continue to do that.

And I think that he will show you over the course of months and years, through what he does in terms of his policies and his speech, that he is going to be a President that brings people together, that unites them, and that speaks very, very forcefully against those who are seeking to do hate or to tear people down because of their religion or their gender or the color of their skin. ïI mean, those are all things that I think the President was clear on.

John.
Q ï ïTwo questions unrelated, if I could. ïThe next big piece in the immigration profile here at the White House is going to be the new executive order. ïIs the President confident that this one will pass legal muster? ïAnd if he is, what gives him that confidence?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think -- first, I want to be clear that we feel confident that we’re still going to prevail on the case -- the merits of the case. ïI think that as was seen in the case of Massachusetts, once it is fully adjudicated, we will prevail because the authority is granted to the President to do what he has to, to protect the country. ïSo I feel very, very confident about where we're going to go.

The second track that he's made very clear as well is that until that occurs, we're going to have a dual-track system. ïAnd then we're going to make sure that we implement a second executive order that is tailored to achieve the same goals but in accordance with what the court said. ïSo we've been working very closely with the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the team here at the White House to make sure that the next step achieves the President's goal of protecting the country and does so in a way that recognizes the concerns that the court had until we prevail at a later time. ïSo it's a dual-track thing.
Q ï ïWill this administration send American terror suspects picked up overseas to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation or prosecution?

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

7/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 86 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïI am not going to discuss that right now. ïAs the President has said very clearly before, we don't telegraph what we're going to do. ïI think he has made very clear, though,

that he believes that Guantanamo Bay does serve a very, very healthy purpose in our national security in making sure that we don't bring terrorists to our seas. ïBut I'm not going

to get into what we may or may not do in the future.

Q ï ïIncluding American citizens?

MR. SPICER: ïAgain, I'm just not going to --

Q ï ïSean, I want to give you a chance to respond to something because I think the President's remarks and your clarification about where he stands on anti-Semitism is clear. ïBut azer that statement was made by the President, The Anne Frank Center released a pretty strongly worded one, saying that these remarks, while well-received, are a Band-Aid on the cancer within the Trump administration, saying that there is, whether blessed or otherwise, a sense of xenophobia within this administration. ïWhat do you think about that?

MR. SPICER: ïLook, the President has made clear since the day he was elected and, frankly, going back through the campaign, that he is someone who seeks to unite this country. ïHe
has brought a diverse group of folks into his administration, both in terms of actual positions and people that he has sought the advice of. ïAnd I think he has been very forceful
with his denunciation of people who seek to attack people because of their hate -- excuse
me, because of their religion, because of their gender, because of the color of their skin. ïAnd it is something that he is going to continue to fight and make very, very clear that he has no place in this administration.ï

But I think that it's ironic that no matter how many times he talks about this, that it's never good enough. ïToday I think was an unbelievably forceful comment by the President as far as his denunciation of the actions that are currently targeted towards Jewish community centers, but I think that he's been very clear previous to this that he wants to be someone that brings this country together and not divide people, especially in those areas.

So I saw that statement. ïI wish that they had praised the President for his leadership in this area. ïAnd I think that hopefully, as time continues to go by, they recognize his commitment to civil rights, to voting rights, to equality for all Americans.

Q ï ïSean, on that, the southern part of --ï

MR. SPICER: ïWe started early with the two questions.

Q ï ïSorry. ïSean, Southern Poverty -- I think you'll want to respond to this.

MR. SPICER: ïOkay.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

8/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 87 of 205

Q ï ïSouthern Poverty Law Center said that the number of anti-Muslim groups in the U.S. has tripled between 2015 and 2016, during the time of the campaign. ïIs this message within the

administration -- anti-Semitism is not allowed, xenophobia is not allowed -- anti-Muslim

sentiment within the administration, has the President been forceful about that particular

issue?

MR. SPICER: ïI think that the President, in terms of his desire to combat radical Islamic
terrorism, he understands that people who want to express a peaceful position have every right in our Constitution. ïBut if you come here or want to express views that seek to do our
country or our people harm, he is going to fight it aggressively, whether it's domestic acts that are going on here or attempts through people abroad to come into this country. ïSo there's a big diyerence between preventing attacks and making sure that we keep this
country safe so that there is no loss of life in allowing people to express themselves in accordance with our First Amendment. ïThose are two very, very diyerent, diyerent, diyerent things. ï

Q ï ïSean, you talked about how the manufacturing -- I didn't know where you were going.

MR. SPICER: ïI was (inaudible) in the back. ï(Laughter.) ï

Q ï ïI saw the manufacturing CEOs are coming on Thursday, so let me ask you something that's important to them, which is the border adjustment tax. ï The President earlier this year called it "too complicated." ïDoes he still feel that way? ïAnd whether he feels this is complicated or not, is there something within the administration one way or another about whether the President, the administration wants to see this in or out of the tax package?

MR. SPICER: ïSo there’s several pieces to that that I’ll try to unpack. ïThat counts as, like, eight questions. ï

Q ï ïDoes he feel it’s complicated, and what’s your preference?

MR. SPICER: ïSo, first of all, on the meeting on Thursday, this is going to be a really historic opportunity for CEOs to come in and talk to members of the White House stay and others through various agencies about how we can create jobs, how regulations are stifling economic growth. ïAnd I think we’ll have further details on that, but this is going to be a real interesting opportunity to really create a dialogue I think in a manner that hasn’t been done before -- but I’m not going to get ahead of myself on this -- where we can really discuss some of the inhibitors to job creation, job retraining, what do we need for American workers to get them ahead of the curve.

With respect to specific policy positions, I think the President has been very clear that in the

next couple weeks we expect to have a tax plan that gets out there. ïThat is being worked on

continuEoXuH.slyT.OïAMnAdCLsEoODI’-mBALnLoDtEgCo. ing

to

get

in

front

of

t9hat.

ïWhile

the CEOs are here, I’m sure NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

9/36

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 88 of 205

beyond some of these things, that’s an opportunity for them to express what some of those

policies are that are both helping them create jobs and grow the economy, and also inhibiting them. ïSo let’s let that conversation play out. ï

Yes.
Q ï ïOkay, thank you, Sean. ïMy name is Raquel (ph) from TV Global News (ph) Brazil. ïAnd I have a question. ïThere are doubts in Brazil right now about what’s going to happen to the relationship between the two countries with the new administration, especially related to immigration and also to trade deals. ïDoes President Trump also plan to review policies -bilateral policies with Brazil in trade deals? ïAnd also, my second question, how does the administration see the current turmoil -- economical and political turmoil in Brazil? ï
And one more question, if I might. ï(Laughter.) ïPresident Trump spoke with some foreign leaders from South America, like Argentina, Colombia and Peru, but not -- it was the Vice President that spoke with President Temer from Brazil. ïWhy is that?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, obviously, we cherish our relationship with Brazil. ïI think there’s a timing factor here and I think we’ll look forward to speaking with the President soon. ïSo I wouldn’t read too much into that right now. ïIt’s just a matter of getting things on the schedule.
We’re going to review all the trade deals that are out there. ïThe President has made very clear some of them have occurred well into a decade, two decades ago. ïI think the idea is to make sure that we are looking at all of the trade deals we have throughout the globe to make sure that they continue to benefit America and American workers. ï ïAnd in many cases, we can update these deals. ï
So it’s not any one particular country. ïI think that we’re going to look throughout the whole host of trade agreements, and then other trade-related agreements that we have with countries to make sure that they are the most up-to-date and they address the technological advances that have occurred, and look at the various services -- whether it’s financial services or manufacturing -- and that they reflect the current state of play.
So this isn’t any one country. ïI think the President made clear throughout the campaign and subsequent that he wants to review every trade deal to make sure that America and American workers are maintaining the best deal possible.
Corbett (ph). ïOh, I’m sorry.
Q ï ïAnd on the turmoil, how does the administration see the turmoil in Brazil now?
MR. SPICER: ïI’m going to -- I think that’s a question for the Department of State right now. ï

CorbettE,XyHe. ahTO. MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

10/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 89 of 205

Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïTwo questions for you. ïOne on the NSC meeting later this azernoon. ïIs

that the first meeting of the National Security Council of the President with all the principals

there?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, that is just a routine briefing. ïBut because of the nature of it, it’s happening in the Situation Room.

Q ï ïBut is that with stay, or is that with --

MR. SPICER: ïStay.

Q ï ïOkay, so it’s not with, like, the principals committee.ï

MR. SPICER: ïNo.

Q ï ïWhen do you anticipate the first formal meeting of the National Security Council?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think General McMaster got here at noon today, so -- (laughter) -- we move fast, but I think that we need to give him a few days probably to get his team together.

So the President was obviously very pleased with the selection. ïI think when you saw the bipartisan support that General McMaster received from the variety of the political spectrum -- people who have served Republicans and Democrats, academics, pundits, columnists -you know that he made an outstanding choice. ïWe want to get him in, show him around the oyice a little bit, and then get him going.

But when we have a date to announce the next meeting, we’ll let you know.
Q ï ïThe joint address for next week, what’s the President’s goal for that address?
MR. SPICER: ïI think that -- I’ll have a further update as the week goes on, and we’ll have briefings. ïThe President is going to lay out I think two main things -- where we’ve come and where we’re going. ïI think that he is very pleased with the progress that he has made so far in the first month in oyice, and I think it’s an opportunity to remind members of Congress and the American people what he promised them on the campaign trail, what he’s done already in a very significant way to achieve and fulfill those promises that he made, but also talk about the challenges that we have as a nation and where we’re going. ïAnd that’s everything from our relationship with other countries in this world to some of the various domestic problems that we face, the challenges that we face in cities, health care, education.

But the President wants to make sure that the American people have a very clear indication

as to where he’s taking this country and why he’s going to enact the policies he’s going to

enact.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

11/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 90 of 205

John. ïGeorge, I’m sorry.

Q ï ïThanks a lot, Sean. ïLet me ask you a question about the Vice President’s European trip. ïI’m curious whether he received any commitments from our European allies to commit more in terms of their financial contribution to NATO.

MR. SPICER: ïI think several of them -- I saw Chancellor Merkel’s comments previous to that, noting that they understand that the U.S. is asking for that commitment.

Look, we’re one of the only countries -- there’s a handful -- that are doing what NATO requires, which is 2 percent of GDP. ïSome of them are at 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and some of them are below that. ïBut we’ve got to ask them to do what they agreed to do. ïAnd I think we’ve had
a very positive reaction from most of these NATO countries that understand that the financial agreement that they agreed to is something that they need to live up to. ï

And I think the Vice President continued to receive assurances, much like the President has through his foreign leader calls, where people not only understand it but are willing to follow through on it.
Q ï ïSo it’s an ongoing process, or --
MR. SPICER: ïOf course it’s an ongoing -- I mean, I think we need to follow up to make sure that the commitments that they’re making on the phone or in person, in the case of the Vice President, are followed up.

Dave.
Q ï ïSean, thanks. ïThe DHS memos today -- obviously these immigration enforcement eyorts cost money, hiring more agents.
MR. SPICER: ïRight.
Q ï ïDo you envision that the current budget is suyicient, or are you going to need to go to Congress for more money? MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think right now ICE and DHS in particular, as well as CBP, are looking at what this is going to cost and how much and putting a request together, and then figuring out how much can be handled through reallocation of resources and how much we can save maybe in another area, but then also work with Congress.
Q ï ïOne other subject, diyerent matter. ïThere was an election report out today that the President raised more small campaign donations in 2016 than either Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders combined. ïDid he have a reaction to that? ïHas he seen that?

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

12/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 91 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïI don’t know, and I would ask you to probably go through the RNC for that.

ïThat’s a political matter that we generally don’t discuss.

Yeah.
Q ï ïSean, the National Center for Transgender Equality, citing reliable sources, says the Trump administration today will rescind Obama-era guidance requiring schools to allow transgender kids to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity. ïWill the Trump administration rescind that guidance?
MR. SPICER: ïRight now that’s an issue that the Department of Justice and the Department of Education are addressing. ïI would tell you that -- and I think that there will be further guidance coming from DOJ in particular with respect to not just the executive order, but also the case that’s in front of the Supreme Court. ï

The President has maintained for a long time that this is a states' rights issue and not one for the federal government. ïSo while there will be further guidance coming out on this, I think that all you have to do is look at what the President’s view has been for a long time -that this is not something that the federal government should be involved in; this is a states' rights issue. ïï

Matt.
Q ï ïIn the wake of the Vice President’s trip to Europe, there’s questions as to the administration’s position on the future of the European Union with regard to a number of political movements across the continent advocating for the disbandment eventually of the European Union. ïI wanted to see if you could clarity the administration’s position on the future of the European Union.
MR. SPICER: ïI think the Vice President had great meetings with several European Union leaders and made it very clear to them that we’ll continue to work with them, and reayirmed our commitment to working with these nations. ïI mean, there’s no update on that.

Cecilia.

Q ï ïThank you. ïOn immigration, on the DHS memo, two parts, if I may. ïIs one of the goals here mass deportation?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, not at all. ïThis isn’t -- look, I think what we have to get back to is understanding a couple things. ïThere’s a law in place that says if you’re in this country

illegally, that we have an obligation to make sure that the people who are in our country are here legally. ïWhat the order sets out today is ensures that the million-or-so people that

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

13/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 92 of 205

have been adjudicated already, that ICE prioritizes, creates a system of prioritization, and

makes sure that we walk through that system in a way that protects this country.

This is consistent with everything the President has talked about, which is prioritizing the people who are here who represent a threat to public safety or have a criminal record. ïAnd all this does is lay out the exact procedures to make sure that that subgroup of people who pose a threat to our nation because of a conviction or a violation of public safety or have a criminal record are adjudicated first and foremost. ïThat's it, plain and simple.
Q ï ïSo is then -- a follow-up to that. ïIs the White House's message to date to undocumented people in this country whose only crime is being in this country illegally, "Don't worry, or you're on notice"?
MR. SPICER: ïNo, the message from this White House and from the DHS is that those people who are in this country and pose a threat to our public safety or have committed a crime will be the first to go and we will be aggressively making sure that that occurs. ïThat is what the priority is.
Q ï ïWhat about the others who aren't? ïThey're watching this fearful right now.
MR. SPICER: ïCecilia, the President has said multiple times that we've got to look at this issue on a very, very holistic way. ïAnd the number-one priority when you look at the scope of how many people are in the country illegally, the number-one priority is making sure that people who pose a threat to this country are immediately dealt with. ïAnd this is not a small group of people; we're talking close to a million people who have already been adjudicated and had their status processed through a formal due process system.
And so what we need to do now is to make sure that we focus the resources and the eyorts on those people going first and foremost. ïAnd the factsheet and the information that we put out lays that out very, very clearly what is being done. ïBut for so long, the people at ICE and CBP had their hands cuyed behind them. ïAnd when they were going to deal with the mission of their job, the last administration had so many carve-outs for who could be and who couldn't be adjudicated that it made it very diyicult for the customs and enforcement people to do their job and enforce the laws of this country.

But right now, what we've done is to make sure that they have the ability and the guidance and the resources to do what their mission is. ïAnd that's it, plain and simple. ïAnd the
President is consistent with his priority of making sure that those people who pose a threat to this country are the first ones to go.ï

Alexis.

Q ï ïSean, on immigration, just to follow up, the President has a carve-out himself for DACA.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

14/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 93 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïYeah.

Q ï ïCan you explain the process -- expand on what you were saying on Thursday about the process that the administration is taking to decide --

MR. SPICER: ïAnd this is what I was basically talking to Cecilia about, which is the President has made clear when you have 12, 14, 15 million people in the country illegally, that there has to be a system of priority. ïAnd right now, ICE's priority is going to make sure that we focus first and foremost on that. ïSpecifically, in the guidance, it talks about the DACA and DAPA, unless someone who fits under that program fits into the sub-category is not subject to what is being dealt with now.

Remember, everybody who is here illegally is subject to removal at any time. ïThat is consistent with every country, not just ours. ïIf you're in this country in an illegal manner, that obviously there's a provision that could ensure that you be removed. ïBut the priority
that the President has laid forward and the priority that ICE is putting forward through
DHS's guidance is to make sure that the people who have committed a crime or pose a threat to our public safety are the priority of their eyorts, first and foremost.

Katelyn.
Q ï ïJohn Kasich --
Q ï ïLet me follow. ïThe President has also, and his team has also had reservations about undocumented people in the United States who are beneficiaries of public assistance or access to benefits, either at the state or the federal level. ïWhat is the President going to be doing to either issue guidance or executive action of some sort to indicate that he would like to preclude that from continuing?
MR. SPICER: ïI think we have talked in the past about the respect that the President has for taxpayer money with respect to sanctuary cities and the enforcement measures that he's putting forward on immigration. ïRight now, obviously, the actions today are focused on people who are in this country and what we need to do on our southern border to facilitate the building of the wall that he's talked about. ï

So we're doing this one step at a time in a very methodical way, and right now the focus is to make sure that ICE and CBP and DHS have the authority and the resources to carry out that first mission. ïWe will have more -- and then continues to see that immigration is one of those issues that he was very, very clear and consistent on in the campaign, and we're going to continue to implement the policies that he talked about to keep the country safe.

Katelyn.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

15/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 94 of 205

Q ï ïThank you. ïJohn Kasich has been a very vocal critic of President Trump, even in the

campaign, saying his immigration plan was crazy, his statement that the elections were rigged was silly, and he did not endorse him and did not vote for him. ïWhat is the President

hoping to accomplish with their meeting at the White House on Friday?

MR. SPICER: ïSo, Governor Kasich has reached out on multiple occasions to meet with the
President to follow on, and the President has shown through the transition and since his time in oyice that he wants to meet with anybody that can help move this country forward and share in his vision. ïI think that includes people who are with him, who are not with him,
who are on the other side of the aisle, who are independents, union workers, business leaders. ï

Now that he is President -- and, frankly, I would again date it back to the transition -- he understands that he's the President for every American. ïAnd he's talked consistently about having a united country. ïAnd you do that by bringing people together, whether or not they agree with you on every issue, or one or two issues. ïBut if there's common ground that can be found to move the country forward, then great. ïAnd I think so many of the President's
priority issues are issues that Ohio is dealing with and that he wants to make sure that he
can continue to work with Governor Kasich so that every American benefits.

April.
Q ï ïDid Kasich ask for the meeting?
MR. SPICER: ïYes.
Q ï ïOkay, what did the President gain from his tour today? ïYou talked about where he visited, the exhibits that he visited. ïDid he also visit slavery? ïAnd the reason why I'm asking is, is because when he was candidate Trump, he said things like "we made this country," meaning white America, and not necessarily black. ïDid he gain --
MR. SPICER: ïI don’t know why you would say that. ïWhat do you mean?
Q ï ïNo, no, no, he said that. ïI heard him say that.
MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, but look -- the answer to your question is -- one of the first exhibits that he visited was one of the slavery exhibits. ïAnd the director walked him through some very amazing stories and statistics about where slavery was prevailing, not just in traditional Southern colonies but throughout the country. ïSo they did have a very robust discussion about slavery early on in the tour. ï

And I think that it was a very eye-opening and powerful tour for him, and, frankly, for every

American. ïAnd I would encourage any American that can find the time and get in, because

it's so pEoXpHu. laTrO. MïBAuCtLEitOrDe-BaAllLyL DisEeC.nlightening as far as p16arts of our hNisOtRoTrHyWtEhSaTtIpMeMoIGpRlAeNmT RaIGyHnToStPROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

16/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 95 of 205

fully appreciate or know, and the contributions and the sacrifices that so many Americans

have made that are a critical piece to our history that sometimes don’t get the attention they deserve. ï

So I think the President walked away from there -- and I mentioned in the remarks that he mentioned to Lonnie that he wanted to come back, because you can't do it justice. ïAnd it's much like the Holocaust Museum where you go through it once and then you sit there and start thinking of all the things that you saw, and think, you know, I'd like to go back and more fully explore what I saw because it piqued some degree of interest or intellectual curiosity. ï

But he was very taken aback. ïIt’s a very, very powerful institution and tour, and it covers a lot of ground. ïI think he was really proud to share it with Dr. Carson. ïI mean, when you walk through that museum and you see all of the elements of our history, when you walk up to this one glass exhibit that is Dr. Carson's scrubs and pictures of him, and to experience that with him and his wife for the first time, and you realize how amazing that is for any American to be part of a Smithsonian, and you're standing with Dr. Carson and his wife where he is experiencing it with you for the first time and how powerful that must have been was, I think, a real interesting opportunity for him to sit there, hand to hand, with another American and watch them be part of American history. ïAnd you also appreciate some of the real contributions that Dr. Carson has made to medicine and the depth and breadth of his accomplishments.

Q ï ïAnd lastly, kind of putting this with the next question, is there any advancement on the CBC meeting with the President? ïAnd also, the head of the CBC said he was wondering if the President saw anything from current and past members of the CBC while he was in the museum, to get a little bit of information on them before this meeting happens.

MR. SPICER: ïI'll have further updates on that. ïI know the President looks forward to that meeting, and I think that we're in the process of trying to begin setting that up. ïAnd so I'll have further updates on that once we get closer. ïI know that we've got some additional
work before the month concludes on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and some meetings that we're working on with them. ïBut I want to get them locked in before I go
further.

Q ï ïWhat did he think about the members that he saw in the museum?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, when you walk through one of them, there's a big jumbotron, and we paused for a while, and John Lewis was there giving a very powerful speech. ïAnd we just paused and watched that for a little while. ïSo, again, I think that, respectfully, when you

walk through a museum like this there's a lot of moments where you're just stopping and

taking it in, and there's -- if you haven’t been there, you walk up this one ramp and they stop

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

17/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 96 of 205

and there's two big screens, and one of them is a video screen, and it's a massive jumbotron

--

Q ï ïThe civil rights --

MR. SPICER: ïRight. ïAnd we watched the video of John Lewis talking there and describing his eyorts in championing voting and civil rights.

So I know the President paused and watched it and listened to it. ïAnd again, I would just go back to how he described his overall -- we didn’t dissect the diyerent things, but I watched
him and it was a very powerful experience for him, and I know he looks forward to going back.ï

Hallie.
Q ï ïSean, two questions for you. ïFirst one on undocumented immigrants. ïYou just made very clear that the President's priority is to deport those who pose a threat to public safety. ï
MR. SPICER: ïCorrect.
Q ï ïI know you're familiar with the case in Arizona of the mother, Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos. ïIs she a threat to this country?
MR. SPICER: ïI'm going to leave that up to ICE. ïWe don’t get involved from the White House to particular cases. ïThat's not --
Q ï ïBut she's a symbol --ï
MR. SPICER: ïYou're right, and I understand.
Q ï ïBut is she a threat to public safety, though?
MR. SPICER: ïBut, Hallie, I think the answer is, is that ICE determined that she had violated the law in a way that was in accordance with this. ïAgain, we've got to go back to this idea that our job, especially here at the White House, isn’t to call balls and strikes and say, well, this person only violated part of the law, or let them go on this. ï

If this was any other subject, if this was tax evasion and we said, well, they only really

violated a little bit of -- they only cheated on their taxes a little, you wouldn’t be saying hey, should they really be going to be prison or should they be getting a fine? ïAt some point, laws are laws. ïAnd if people have a problem with the law, whether it's at the local, state or

federal issue, then we should petition our lawmakers and the executive at that particular branch of government and change it. ïBut our job shouldn’t be to figure out should this individual not have to abide by the law, should this individual get a pass. ïIf we want to

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

18

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

18/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 97 of 205

change the law, we've got a very amazing process here in this country to both create and

change laws.

And so I don’t want to comment on the specifics of any one case because I think that then puts the White House in a position of deciding who is following the law and who isn’t, and who should get a pass. ïThe bottom --

Q ï ïBut isn’t it diyerent from you just said of prioritization of cases? ïThere's a diyerence --ï

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, there's a diyerence. ïWhen you have 13 or 14 million people, they're in
the country -- you know, I think it's one thing to say prioritize people who pose a threat to public safety and go azer this individual or that individual, or whatever. ïThere's no
question, you have to have priorities in anything -- what do you do first, what do you do second, what do you do third. ïAnd when you're talking about, 13, 14, 15, potentially more, millions of people in this country, the President needed to give guidance, especially azer
what they went through in the last administration where there were so many carve-outs
that ICE agents and CBP members had to figure out each individual whether or not they fit in a particular category and they could adjudicate that case. ïThe President wanted to take the shackles oy individuals in these agencies and say: ïYou have a mission, there are laws that need to be followed; you should do your mission and follow the law. ïAnd for specific
cases, I would refer you to ICE in particular and do that.

Q ï ïSean, where did you get the 13 and 14 million number?

MR. SPICER: ïHold on, Hallie is on number two.

Q ï ïThank you.

Q ï ïThe 13, 14 million number -- where did you get that number?

MR. SPICER: ïGlenn, will you please not interrupt her?

Q ï ïDo you want to take that now?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, I think -- I'm not going to allow you to be interrupted.ï

Q ï ïSo the second question is on the anti-Semitism comments that you referenced from the podium, the President made very clear. ïYou said, though, that he has taken opportunities in the past. ïJust last week, though, he had the opportunities to deliver a message to the American people about anti-Semitism. ïHe made very clear he was not anti-Semitic and he was, in fact, insulted by that. ïBut as far as a broader message to the American people, he declined to oyer one. ï Is the President comfortable with his obligation as the leader of this country to deliver that kind of broad and forceful message to Americans? ïAnd if so, why

didn’t hEeXHd.o TitOsMoAoCnLeEOr Din-BtAhLLeDcEaCs.e of these attacks? 19

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

19/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 98 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think the idea, Hallie, that -- he has. ïAnd I think there's a point at which

he talked literally on election night about uniting this country and making sure that all Americans, et cetera. ïAnd every time there's an instance, it's interesting -- I mean, I get a question, "Is he going to denounce this one, is he going to denounce this one?" ïAt some point, the question is asked and answered. ïHe has stood very forcefully against --

Q ï ïThat's not what I'm asking. ïI'm not asking --

MR. SPICER: ïWhat are you --

Q ï ïI'm asking, is he comfortable with his role as the person who needs to be delivering a broader message to America, not denouncing it, which he did clearly today.

MR. SPICER: ïRight. ïAnd I think that he is very comfortable and understands that as the leader of the free world, the President of this country, the Commander-in-Chief, that he has an awesome responsibility to make it very clear where we're going as a country and what our values are, and that he has spoken very forcefully that we don’t stand for this kind of behaviors, and words, and intolerance, that we are a country that should bring people together and that we shouldn’t tolerate people who are hating on individuals because of their gender or because of their religion or the color of their skin, or a variety of other things, but that there's a point at which it's asked and answered. ï

And I think the President has been very clear over and over again, going back through the campaign, the transition and now, that that's the kind of President that he wants to be, that's the kind of country that he wants to lead.

Trey.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïFollowing the DHS memos this morning, the ACLU said the courts won't allow these orders to become a reality. ïHow is the administration preparing for another potential legal battle? ïAnd do you have any response to the ACLU?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think we have done a phenomenal job of working with the various departments, particularly DHS and DOJ, State, and through the White House stay, to make sure that we are well within any concerns that the court might have. ï

And as I mentioned, I think it's important to continue to emphasize we feel as though the first one did that as well, and we were vindicated several times in the court. ïWe have an issue with the 9th Circuit and I think we will overcome that, ultimately, on the merits. ïBut in the meantime, a dual-track is something that we wanted to pursue to make sure that we do everything we can, as I mentioned before, to keep the country safe.

Q ï ïSean, thank you. ïThe Australian foreign minister is here today, meeting the Vice

PresideEnXtH.. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

20

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

20/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o1v 99 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïI'm sorry, say that again.

Q ï ïThe Australian foreign minister is meeting the Vice President today and also the Secretary of State tomorrow. ïI guess we can assume that the U.S.-Australia refugee deal will come up. ïNow, last time we spoke, the President was still considering and reviewing a deal. ïCan you just update us on what the current position is?

MR. SPICER: ïWe'll have a readout of that.

Q ï ïAnd just --ï

MR. SPICER: ïOkay, of course everyone gets two. ï(Laughter.)

Q ï ïIf you could just update us on the current position on the deal. ïAnd also, given that recent exposure on the President's distaste for it, will Australia be expected to return the favor?

MR. SPICER: ïLook, again, I would wait. ïWe'll have a readout azer that call as far as what they discussed. ïBut I've got nothing -- I don't want to get ahead of the Vice President's meeting with either the Secretary of State or the Vice President.

Kristen.

Q ï ïThank you. ïI have two questions. ïOne, on the immigration refugee executive order that we're expecting in the coming days, so that it withstands legal challenges, can you tell us what the language might look like as it relates to Syrian refugees?

MR. SPICER: ïI appreciate the eyort, but when we have it ready we'll get it out. ïAnd I think part of this is --ï

Q ï ï(Inaudible) ban on Syrian refugees?

MR. SPICER: ïExcuse me? ïAgain, I appreciate the second try, but we're not ready to announce it. ïAnd part of it is, is that we're making sure that it is completely ready to go. ïAnd so when we have that, we will get it out to you. ïAnd I would just -- the reason that we
haven't announced it is it's not ready to be announced.

Q ï ïI want to try one more on --

MR. SPICER: ïOf course. ï

Q ï ï-- the comments that the President made today about anti-Semitism. ïIn terms of the

timing, obviously he was asked about it, but they also came azer his daughter, Ivanka, sent

out that tweet. ïHas she counseled him? ïWas she one of the people saying it's important for

you to fEoXrHc.efuTOllyMAdCeLnEoODu-nBcAeLLtDhEiCs?. ïWhy today?

21

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

21/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o2v 00 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïBecause the President was visiting the African American Museum, he wanted to make it very clear. ïI think it was very powerful that, while there, and while understanding

the struggles of so many -- and we talk about how one of the beauties of history is that we don't repeat itself. ïAnd I think that when you're at a museum like that and seeing the

struggles that so many Americans faced and overcame, that you want to remind people that

there is still issues that our country is grappling with and that there is no place for that hate

and for that language.

And I think -- as I mentioned, it was a very powerful opportunity for him to say that and to make clear, again, what his opinions were.
Q ï ïDoes he regret not doing it last week, Sean?
MR. SPICER: ïI'm sorry?
Q ï ïDoes he regret not stating this comment last week?
MR. SPICER: ïThe President was very clear. ïThat was a very -- I think, as I mentioned to Hallie, he has discussed this over and over again. ïI think there's a point to which his position is abundantly clear. ïHis attempts and his desire and his rhetoric to unite the country has been expressed over and over again.

Sarah.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïThe New York Times is reporting that Trump's budget director is preparing a budget that eliminates the Export-Import Bank. ïBut several lawmakers, including Senator Heitkamp, have come out of private meetings with President Trump and said that in those private meetings he expressed support for the export bank. ïSo which is it? ïDoes he support Ex-Im or does he support eliminating it?
MR. SPICER: ïI can confirm that the OMB director -- the budget director is working on a budget. ï(Laughter.) ïBeyond that, I'm not going to get ahead of the OMB director right now. ïThey are drazing a budget, they are talking to members of Congress and other interested parties about funding levels and such, but we're not at a position to go yet.

Yes.

Q ï ïSean, just wanted to circle on Alexis's question. ïSince the DHS guidance did not eliminate DACA, does that mean that the program is remaining in place, that it's a settled matter and it's not going away?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, Jordan. ïWhat it means is that this particular enforcement is tailored to

what I have been referencing over and over again -- that what we're talking about today is

the

impElXeHm. eTnOtaMtAioCLnEoODf -tBhAoLLseDEtCw. o

executive

orders,

o2n2e

specifically that's tasking the NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT

RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

22/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o2v 01 of 205

agencies under DHS to address a very specific problem of the million or so, plus or minus,

people that they have identified, that they have then adjudicated with already going

through the process to be adjudicated and taken out of the country.

Q ï ïThat means a decision on DACA could come any day.ï

MR. SPICER: ïThat's right, exactly. ïIt just means that this -- what it means, more than anything, is that this order does not address that and it's very clear in the Q&A -- and, again, I would refer you back to DHS's website that has all of that.

Goyal.
Q ï ïThank you very much. ïTwo questions please. ïOne, it's been one month on the job for you and for the President, and you are already talk of the town around the globe. ï(Laughter.) ïMy two questions are, one --ï
MR. SPICER: ïMy wife would disagree with you. ï(Laughter.) ïIt's not always positive, too.
Q ï ïIt looks like, Sean, that the President's order is working at least around the globe because more than 60,000 Pakistanis have been deported by Saudi Arabia. ïBut they're saying that they were illegals and also they're a threat to the country. ïAnd also, at the same time, Pakistani government is arresting hundreds of terrorists inside the country. ïAny presidential message?

MR. SPICER: ïLook, I'm not going to -- there's nothing that I have in terms of an update of what's going on in Pakistan. ïI would refer you to the Department of State with respect to specific policies. ïBut the broader point that you're making is I think each country needs to look at what they need to do to control the people that are entering their country and keep their people safe.

When you look at our laws in particular, and compare them to so many other countries around the globe, we actually tend to probably fall in the lower end of how tough our immigration policies are vis-à-vis someone else.
Q ï ïSean, my second question.
MR. SPICER: ïI'm sorry.

Q ï ïAs far as illegal immigrants are concerned in the U.S., millions of illegal immigrants that were waiting for the last eight or ten years that they might see a light in the dark tunnel, and now they’re hoping that President Trump will have a light for them. ïSo what is the President’s message for them who are in this country for five, 10, 15 or 20 years but they’re not -- they don’t have any criminal records?

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

23

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

23/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o2v 02 of 205

MR. SPICER: ïWell, look, the President has said before he’s got a big heart. ïAnd I think that

as we continue to develop policy on immigration, it’s going to be, as we’ve talked about in the past, prioritized -- what we go azer first, second third. ïThe President has made very clear he understands the plight of some of those individuals. ïHe’s got a big heart. ïHe

understands the impact it has on many families, many communities.

But we will continue to develop policies that will address that. ïAnd again, today’s focus is specifically on those two executive orders, and I’m going to limit it to that.

Q ï ïSean, at the beginning of the month, Senator John McCain sent a letter to the President requesting that the administration provide arms to Ukrainians fighting Russian separatists within their country. ïWhen will the President respond to Senator McCain’s letter? ïAnd what is the administration’s position on lethal aid to Ukrainians fighting Russian separatists?

MR. SPICER: ïI don’t have anything for you on that. ïI’ll try to get back to you on that. ïI know that we’re very pleased to watch Senator McCain praise the pick of General McMaster. ïThat’s obviously someone that we will consult with. ïBut we were pleased to see so much support for him.

Scott Newman (ph).
Q ï ïOn Russia -- critics of the President have said that at time he doesn’t talk tough enough on the subject. ïGeneral McMaster, though, has been labeled by a lot of people as being pretty hawkish. ïI’m curious what, if any, diyerence in tone or tenor or strategy we should expect now that they’re working together.
Q ï ïWell, I think, as I mentioned a couple times, I think there is widespread praise for General McMaster and his understanding and command of national security matters, foreign policy matters. ïHe’s going to be a great asset to the President’s national security team.

But ultimately, the President has always been the decider, whether it’s Russia or any other issue. ïAnd I think you’re right, he has made it very clear that if he can get a deal with Russia, something that the last several administrations have tried to do, that he’s going to do it. ïAnd if he can’t, he won’t. ïBut he is going to try. ïAnd I think his success as a businessman and negotiator should be seen as a positive sign for him to be able to do that.

But he understands that if he can find common ground on defeating ISIS and combatting

terrorism, growing the economy where we can find areas of economic interest, then we’re going to do it. ïBut that’s where we’re going to continue to work with Russia if we can. ïHe’ll get a deal. ïIf he can’t, he won’t. ïBut he’s going to try. ïAnd I think where others have failed,

he’s going to make sure that he does everything possible to make sure that if it’s in the

interestEXoHf.thTeOUMnAiCtLeEdODS-tBaAtLeLsDhECe.will get a deal.

24

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

24/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o2v 03 of 205

Q ï ïI have another question on General McMaster. ïSo how much leeway is he going to get to

restructure, to bring on his own people? ïThere were some reports that Admiral Harward

was not allowed to, or others as well. ïSo can you address that?

MR. SPICER: ïThank you. ïI can. ïHe will have 100 percent. ïThe President has been very, very clear with that. ïHe is the National Security Advisor, and he will have whatever he needs to implement a successful team. ï

But with respect to Admiral Harward that you brought up, Admiral Harward made it very, very clear that he wanted this job, he would love to take it. ïHe was impressed with the team. ïBut during the course of discussions, it came up -- he said: Before I continue with this discussion, I need to address some financial and family concerns. ïHe went back, he came
back to us and said, I am unable to continue the discussions because of there’s some financial concerns and some family issues that we have. ïI spent 40 years serving this
country in the United States Navy.

I talked to him again Saturday night, and he said: ïIf there’s another opening in a year or two, I would be honored, I am so impressed with the team that’s there.ï

And I would urge people to actually talk to him. ïHe was so excited about being part of the team. ïHe was available to as many reporters as he could take. ïWe gave out his information -- his contact information. ïAnd he’s been very clear. ïHe wrote a letter to the President prior to -- first thing Tuesday morning. ïHe was in the UAE, he sent the letter over and we had it
first thing in the morning, where he said, because of family concerns, because of some
financial constraints, having served this nation for 40 years, I can’t take this job, but I'm unbelievably impressed. ï

All of the rumors about the discretion that he would have over stay or any other thing were 100 percent false. ïHe's made it clear that he would love to serve in the future, that he was impressed with the team, that he wanted to do this. ïThere were just some constraints financially and family-wise that come with -- or azer having served 40 years in the military, sacrifices both financially and family-wise that he had had to make. ï

But I talked to him several times, and the team has talked to him. ïBut ultimately, the President was very, very impressed with General McMaster. ïHe had always been one of the individuals that he thought stood above so many other folks. ïHe was impressed with the entire list, John Bolton and others. ïBut so many people had spoken to him. ïGeneral Mattis,

Tom Cotton, other senators really praised General McMaster's command of the issues, his management, his style, his understanding of the geopolitical landscape. ïAnd I think that's

why you saw such amazing widespread bipartisan praise for him, and why he will be such an asset to the national security team. ïSo, ultimately, we ended up with the best choice. ïAnd I

think that's going to benefit not just this administration but our entire nation.

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

25/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o2v 04 of 205

Q ï ïSean, can we expect him to get anyone else from the top of -- any senior people at the

NSC?

MR. SPICER: ïI'm sorry?

Q ï ïCan we expect that he may replace any others in the NSC?

MR. SPICER: ïAgain, I just can't be any clearer. ïI think that we've got an amazing team. ïHe's been impressed with them. ïBut the President has, as he did with other candidates, told them that they would lead the team and that he would have the discretion of it.

Jey.

Q ï ïI just wanted to follow on that. ïYou said that he has the full authority to structure his oyice as he sees fit. ïDoes that extend to the principals committee, as well? ïAzer he comes in and takes a look at the whole apparatus, if he advises the President and he would prefer not to have the chief strategist as a member of the principals committee, would the President --

MR. SPICER: ïI think the President has made clear to him he's got full authority to structure the national security team the way he wants. ïObviously, with something like that, he would come to the President and make that recommendation. ïBut the President would take that under serious consideration. ïI don’t want to go ahead with this person or that person or
structure, but the President made it very clear with him and the other candidates that they
had 100 percent control and authority over the national security committee.

Thank you, guys. ïI'll see you tomorrow.

Q ï ïWill McMaster have to retire? ïCan you clarify that?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, he will stay on active duty. ï

Q ï ïDoes that require Senate confirmation then?

MR. SPICER: ïNo. ïHe will stay on active duty. ïThat was the case with Powell and I think some other folks.

Q ï ïOne more clarification just before you go. ïSo when the new EO comes out, you won't rescind the original one and you'll leave it in place?

MR. SPICER: ïThat's correct. ïYes. ïThank you, guys.

ENDï 2:41 P.M. EST

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

26

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

26/36

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001P3re5ss-JBrLieRin DPorecsusmSeecrnetatr6S8e-a1n SpFiceilr,e2d/210/2301/71, 31/317whitePhoausgee. o2v 05 of 205
¬ŧ­ 

HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN SA. ov Privac Polic Cop ri ht Polic

EXH. TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse. ov/the-press-o ice/2017/02/21/press- rie in -press-secretar -sean-spicer-2212017-13

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

27/36

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 2 of 160

the WHITE HOUSE

Í

From the Press Oyice
Speeches & Remarks Press Brie ings Statements & Releases Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures

The White House Oyice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

February 22, 2017

Press Brieng by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/22/2017, #14

James S. Brady Press Briefing Roomï

12:55 P.M. EST
MR. SPICER: ïGood azernoon, everyone. ïI wanted to wait until the President finished up with his remarks on the budget before I came out. ïAs you saw, he's -- a really good opportunity to sit down with his team. ïIt's clearly been a busy day here at the White House again, so I'm going to kind of keep it quick and get to your questions.

This morning, azer receiving his daily intelligence briefing, the President met with Secretary

of State Tillerson. ïAs you all know, Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Kelly will travel to

Mexico City later today as one of their first foreign trips. ïIt’s significant that the President is

sendingEXtHh.eAAseTcOrMetAaCrLiEeOsDt-oBAMLLeDxEicCo. so early in the adm1inistration.ï NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 3 of 160

It’s symbolic of the meaningful relationship that our two nations have. ïThese are important

meetings regarding the President’s agenda to improve the quality of lives for both people of Mexico and the United States by combatting drug trayickers and finding ways to bolster

both our economies through a broader relationship that promotes commerce and legal immigration. ïThis is a very encouraging start to a working relationship with an incredible

neighbor to the south.

At this moment, the President has just wrapped up his discussions on the federal budget with some of the oyicials and stay who will be instrumental in the work to put this country back on a responsibly fiscal path.
Joining the meeting were Reince Priebus, the Chief of Stay; Steve Bannon; Jared Kushner; Gary Cohn, the Director of the National Economic Council; Secretary Steve Mnuchin of the Department of Treasury; Director Mulvaney of the Oyice of Management and Budget; Russ Vought of the Oyice of Management and Budget; and Emma Doyle of Oyice of Management and Budget.

As the President mentioned last week, we look forward to presenting our tax reform plan
and providing much-needed tax reform and relief to the hardworking men and women of our nation. ïThe President is going to restore and respect the American taxpayer by enabling
them to keep more of their hard-earned money, and by making sure the federal government spends money more responsibly. ïAzer the lunch, the President will continue this important discussion with other members of the senior stay.

Additionally, the Vice President today is in St. Louis to participate in listening sessions with American workers and employees of the Fabick Cat equipment and engineer* [engine] dealer, a 100-year-old family-owned and operated business.

During his visit, the Vice President will discuss the economic comeback in store for our nation under the President’s economic agenda and with small business owners and employees. ïThe President has already made strides towards slashing redundant regulations through his executive actions, and we will work with Congress to enact further pro-growth legislation.ï
Back to the President’s schedule. ïLater this azernoon, the President will participate in his standing legislative ayairs strategy session. ïOur legislative ayairs team is in constant contact with our counterparts on the Hill, keeping an open dialogue on all aspects of the President’s agenda. ïLast week alone, more than 40 diyerent senators and members of Congress visited the White House.

On the Supreme Court front, so far Judge Gorsuch has met with 58 senators -- 36

Republicans and 22 Democrats -- and he has more meetings already on the books for next

week wEhXeHn. AtAhTeOSMeAnCaLtEeODre-BtAuLrLnDsEtCo. session. ïWe’ve bee2n especially eNnOcRoTHuWraEgSTedIMbMyIGtRhAeNT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 4 of 160

reception he’s received from several senior Democrats, including Senators Feinstein, Tester,

Durbin, and Gillibrand.

Also on the confirmation front, multiple unions came out today for Alex Acosta, the President’s nominee for Labor Secretary. Both the Laborers' International Union of North America and the International Union of Operating Engineers praised his distinguished career and pledged their support for his nomination.
The legislative ayairs team is using the congressional work period to coordinate with key coalitions in Congress. ïThey are meeting with diyerent groups in the House and Senate, including the stay of the Congressional Black Caucus, House and Senate leadership, and stay throughout various committees. ïWe’ve used this work period as an opportunity to invite stayers from both sides of the aisle to come to the White House and discuss shared priorities and find common ground on the way forward.

And we’re not just reaching out to Capitol Hill, we've actively engaged with key leaders and policymakers around the country. ïIt’s critical to this administration that we gather input from states and from people throughout the country, rather than just leaders here in Washington.

Looking ahead to tomorrow, the President will meet with a group of world-class business leaders to discuss specific actions he can take to remove barriers to job creation. ïThese leaders, many of whom represent some of the country’s largest manufacturers, will begin the day in working groups with the Vice President, Cabinet members and key aides of the President’s stay. ïThe working groups will engage in a deep-dive conversation on the attendees’ specific areas of expertise. Topics of discussion include deregulation, tax and trade, training and the workforce of the future, and infrastructure.
Vice President Pence will be engaged with each of the groups. ïAnd azer the groups conclude their discussion, the President’s stay will compile the feedback and the President will sit down with the entire group for a listening session on some of their recommendations.

As you can tell by the structure of the meeting, the President is expecting these interactions to lead to real action being taken by the administration. ïCreating a dynamic and booming economy that works for all Americans continues to be at the top of his domestic policy agenda. ïAs a successful businessman himself, the President knows that if we’re going to get the country back to work, we need to hear directly from job creators what is holding them back, and, where appropriate, take steps to remove the barriers.

In his first month in oyice, the President has already taken numerous actions to boost job creation, and key economic indicators are showing that it’s working. ïCEO and [consumer]

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

3/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 5 of 160

confidence are up, the stock market continues to reach record highs, and the January numbers were strong. ïThe meetings on Thursday will continue to build on that momentum.

And with that, I’m glad to take some questions. ïSteve Holland.

Q ï ïSteve Holland is not here.ï

MR. SPICER: ïSorry, Jey Mason gets it. ï(Laughter.) ï

Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïCan you give us an update on the administration's plans with regard to transgender bathrooms in schools? ïAnd can you confirm that there has been some disagreement between Secretary DeVos and the Attorney General on this issue?

MR. SPICER: ïSo I would expect further guidance to come out on that today. ïThe President, as I said yesterday, is a firm believer in states' rights. ïWhen you look at the guidance that
was issued under the Obama administration -- first of all, let's remember, to the best of my knowledge, that was stalled and never fully implemented. ïAnd I think there were various reasons for that -- several legal reasons and several procedural reasons. ïAnd so the
Department of Education and the Department of Justice, both who jointly issued that
guidance back during the Obama administration, are now working together again under a
Trump administration, they've been reviewing the guidance that was signed, the basis by which it was put through. ïAnd I think there have been several areas of concern, both legal and procedural, that they have been discussing. ï

And I think where you might be hearing something is more on the timing and the wording of stuy. ïThe conclusions, everybody in the administration is agreed upon. ïThere is no daylight between anybody -- between the President, between any of the Secretaries. ïI think there
has been some discussion between the timing of the issuance and recommendations, or between the exact wording. ï

But as far as the conclusions go, I've made this clear and the President has made it clear throughout the campaign that he is a firm believer in states' rights and that certain issues like this are not best dealt with at the federal level.

Q ï ïSean, a report out today that some Cabinet Secretaries are bristling at what they see as the White House micromanaging staying at the sub-Cabinet level. ïTo what degree does the White House think that it should impose its hiring approvals on members of the subCabinet? ïAnd is some of this at least partially driven by Cabinet Secretaries wanting to appoint people who might not necessarily be aligned with the President's thinking?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I mean, I think when you come to -- they're called political appointees for

a reason. ïThe idea is that people who come into this government should want to support

and enact the President's agenda that he campaigned on with the American people. ïAnd I

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

4/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 6 of 160

think one of the reasons that you see in recent polls the President -- people, even if they

don't agree with the President, they give him high marks for following through on the

promises that he's made to the American people and getting things done that he actually

said, which is not always the case here in Washington.

And I think that we want to make sure that the people who stay a Trump administration are committed to a Trump agenda, and that's -- so Cabinet Secretaries and other administrators and directors have broad discretion. ïBut I think at the end of the day, no matter what position you have -- whether it's the lowest or the highest in the White House or in a department or agency -- we should be making sure that people who are coming in as appointees of the President support the President's agenda. ïAnd I think that's one thing -this isn't about getting a job as a federal employee where you're subject to certain restrictions as to what you can and can't do as a benefit of being a federal employee. ïThese are political appointees, and so I think that there is obviously -- we are going to ensure that people who are political appointees share the vision and agenda that the President campaigned on and is implementing.

Q ï ïAnd does the White House believe that it needs to have the final approval of these people or can you trust your Cabinet Secretaries to --

MR. SPICER: ïIt's not a question of trust. ïIt's a question of just making sure that we're all on the same page and committed to the same agenda that the President has set forth. ïThis process is probably no diyerent than we've seen in previous administrations. ïCabinet
Secretaries come to the President with recommendations on who they want, and it depends on the position, obviously. ï

But in certain cases, if they're going to fulfill a job that is a key area that the President had very specific goals to enact that he promised the American people, you want to make sure that the person that is fulfilling that job actually is committed to the agenda and the vision that the President set forth and promised the American people. ïAnd that's -- so there is -that's something that we're always going to be making sure is in alignment.
Q ï ïAnd is this approval process in some way slowing down the appointment of crucial stayers?
MR. SPICER: ïNo. ïNo, not at all. ïI don't think so. ïI think when you look across where we are and we track the number of folks that are in the pipeline, we're doing very, very well with getting all of these positions filled. ïAnd I think once in a while, you might hear of one or two people, but overall, generally speaking, I mentioned during the transition period how many members of the beachhead teams that we had, and I think we -- those members who are appointed through the beachhead process had 120 days. ïAnd they were there to allow

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

5/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 7 of 160

basically a four-month process for Secretaries in the White House to make sure that people on a permanent basis could populate those positions. ïAnd that's what's happening.

But make no mistake -- I mean, we were ahead of the curve on the beachhead teams. ïWe were very clear with the landing teams during the transition. ïThis has been a very
methodical process that has seen from top to bottom through, and I think we're doing a phenomenal job of staying the government.

Margaret.

Q ï ïThank you. ïOh, which Margaret?

MR. SPICER: ïOh, lucky me. ï(Laughter.) ï

Q ï ïTwo Margarets. ïI'm going to take mine -- I've got a Bloomberg-y question for you. ï(Laughter.) ï

MR. SPICER: ïI've got a Sean-y answer for you. ï(Laughter.)

Q ï ïThe President in the Roosevelt Room just said to us that, among other things, that the tax plan is nearly finalized but it can't be submitted until the healthcare plan statutorily or otherwise is, so we're doing the healthcare. ïSo what I wanted to clarify was, is the White House doing a healthcare proposal, or was he talking about Congress and not the White House? ïOr is there a new plan?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, obviously -- right. ïSo obviously there's two vehicles -- reconciliation vehicles that -- FY17 -- I'm going to give you a Bloomberg-y answer. ï(Laughter.) ïThe FY17 reconciliation, that was never completed because the budget wasn't finalized in the last Congress. ïAnd then you’ve got the 2018. ïI think we want to make sure -- look at the opportunities to work with Congress on Obamacare, utilizing the 2017, and then you could utilize the 2018 reconciliation and budget process to do tax reform.

That’s not -- and again, that’s not prescriptive. ïI’m not -- but as far as why the President is saying it that way is because we’ve got that option available to us right now, and I think the President is committed to making sure that the promise that he made to the American people to repeal and replace Obamacare continues to be first and foremost, and then his tax plan.

But it’s not a “we can walk and chew gum” kind of thing. ïWe can actually be continuting to work with Congress and the leadership in both Houses.ï

Q ï ïPresident Obama used to say that. ïJust to do the Bloomberg-y timeline, there’s a few things that are going to happen then. ïThere’s going to be a budget plan that you guys are

going toEXpHr.eAsAeTnOtMoAnCLMEOaDrc-BhA1LL3DthEC-i.sh.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

6/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 8 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïIsh. ï(Laughter.) ï

Q ï ïThere’s going to be a healthcare -- this is where I got lost again -- something from him and something from them, and a tax reform plan azerwards? ïIs that the way it works?

MR. SPICER: ïI don’t want -- look, when we’re ready to announce stuy -- but I think again, I think you’ve got Obamacare, the budget, and tax reform. ïIt’s going to be a very busy March and April for us. ïAnd we’ve been continuing to work with Congress to make sure that that’s implemented. ï

Noah Bierman.
Q ï ïDoes the President -- you were talking about fulfilling his promises. ïAs you know, he promised during the campaign a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country. ïThere were a lot of people in his party who thought that was a very good proposal. ïCan you explain his evolution in backing down from that? ïAnd can you also say whether he regrets using that rhetoric, since it ended up hurting the court case?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, again, I’d go back to the merits of the case and the order that gives him the authority to make that. ïU.S. Code 1182 is very clear. ïThe President was very clear in his executive order that these were countries that we didn’t have the proper vetting for when it came to ensuring the safety of Americans.
That’s what the executive order said. ïThe authority is very clear to have done it. ïAnd I think that you’re going to continue to see the President take the steps necessary to protect this country. ïThat’s why he’s talked about fighting this on both fronts, making sure that we keep evolving through the court system on the existing EO, and then looking towards the next draz of the executive order that will continue to achieve the goal of protecting the American people.
So that’s where we are. ïThat’s what the order says. ïAnd then so I think we continue to feel confident that that’s -- but it was crazed in a way that was very clear about the countries, and was not focused on anything else but the vetting requirements that we have to make sure that we know who’s coming into this country and that they’re here not to do us any harm.
Q ï ïBut when talking about fulfilling his promises, can you explain why he decided to back down from that one? ïBecause I know you diyerentiated this from that promise.
MR. SPICER: ïI think he’s made it very clear, Noah, from the beginning that this was a country-focused issue, a safety-focused issue, and that’s why he issued it. ïI don’t see anything other than that with reference to that.

Debra SEaXuH.nAdAeTrOs.MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

7/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1re3ss5B-rJieLfinRg by DPreoscs uSemcreetanrty S6e8an-2SpiceFr,i2le/2d2/200137,/#1134/|1w7hitehoPusaeg.geov 9 of 160

Q ï ïHi. ïThe Oscars are Sunday night. ïWill the President be watching? ïIf there’s a Meryl Streep kind of moment, how do you think he’ll react? ïAnd why -- if this has happened at

other awards ceremonies, why do you think this happens?

MR. SPICER: ïWhy do I think what happens? ï(Laughter.)ï

Q ï ïActresses and actors like Meryl Streep.ï

MR. SPICER: ïI have no idea. ïIt’s a free country. ïI think Hollywood is known for being rather far to the lez in its opinions. ïAnd I’ve got to be honest with you, I think the President will be hosting the Governors Ball that night. ïMrs. Trump looks forward to putting on a phenomenal event, and the First Lady has put a lot of time into this event that’s going to occur in welcoming our nation’s governors to the Capitol. ïAnd I have a feeling that that’s where the President and the First Lady are going to be focused on on Sunday night, and so we’ll go from there.

Q ï ïSean, the President is going to have a big audience next Tuesday in the joint address to Congress. ïDoes he have a set of goals in mind for the speech? ïAnd do you think we’re going to see some specific policy rollouts as part of that speech?

MR. SPICER: ïI think that the speech is going to focus -- I mentioned this yesterday -- I think it’s going to talk -- remind the American people what he’s done already, and make sure that he explains to them not just because of a sense of accomplishment in moving this country forward, but because I think it’s important for the American people to know that he was an agent of change, he came here to get things done, and he didn’t waste any time.

He’s committed to keeping his word. ïAnd then I think he’s going to lay out his vision and talk about things like education and healthcare and infrastructure, the problems that we face as a country, the violence in some of our inner cities, but also some of the solutions that we can act on and some of the partnerships that we can create. ïIt’s obviously still a work in progress.

But I think it’s going to look forward to where he wants to take this country and talk about working with Congress and other leaders throughout the country to get things done. ïBut I think in the drazs that I’ve seen so far, it is going to be a very strong blueprint of where he wants to take this country. ï

In the past, I think a lot of presidents -- or some presidents, rather, have gotten into very detailed specifics. ïI think you’re going to see him try to talk about policies in a broad sense
of where he wants to take this country and what defining success is, what that goal means. ïBut it’s still a work in progress, and hopefully towards the end of the week --

Q ï ïIs the tone going to be optimistic, sunny?

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

8/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov10 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think this is an opportunity for him to lay out a very positive vision for

the nation and to really let America know where we can go and how we can get there, and

the potential that we have as a nation.

Anita.

Q ï ïJust piggybacking on that, and then I have another question. ïWill he -- I know past presidents, including President Obama, immediately hit the road azer -- I know this isn’t a State of the Union, but something like a State of the Union address to sell policies. ïAnd
since you’re saying it’s more of a vision, does he anticipate doing -- going out --

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think there will be some travel. ïI don't want to -- that's evolving right now. ïThere’s a lot of things that we're trying to look at. ïAnd I think as we look at the speech and some of the objectives and goals and vision that he’s sharing, talk to him about potential places to go to highlight that. ïBut I think you're going to see a fair amount of visits in the next few weeks to highlight some of the places that he wants to take them.

Q ï ïAnd then the other thing was, I've seen -- some members of Congress were here last week. ïThere’s the legislative meeting today. ïIt feels as if we haven’t seen as many executive actions -- or executive orders. ïI know we have the one -- vetting one coming out this week. ïAre we in a diyerent phase now that he’s sort of done the executive orders that he wants to
do --

MR. SPICER: ïNo.

Q ï ï-- and we're going to legislation?

MR. SPICER: ïWe have several that are in the pipeline. ïAnd part of it is just -- these days are focused with these meetings and getting things done and trying to plan ahead. ïAnd so as
we see fit and as the implementation process of a lot of these goes through the process, we’ll have future -- we’ll have plenty more. ïBut --ï

Q ï ïIt does seem that there's more legislative emphasis right now.

MR. SPICER: ïWell, it’s both. ïAnd I think part of this is as we work through Congress, Anita, these are big things, right? ïWe're talking about fundamental tax reform -- something that hasn’t happened in our nation since 1986. ïThe repeal and replacement of Obamacare,
which was mammoth.

And I think part of this is that those things take time. ïHe’s got a joint address on Tuesday. ïThere’s a lot of things that are happening, and therefore we need to kind of make sure that we appropriately use the schedule. ïBut I can assure you that if you've missed executive orders, you're going to see a bunch -- ï

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

9/23

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov11 of 160

Q ï ï(Inaudible.)ï

MR. SPICER: ï(Laughter.) ïI know. ïI just want to make sure you know.

Jonathan Karl.
Q ï ïI want to ask you about the town halls, and we're hearing about Obamacare. ïThe President referred to “so-called angry crowds” at these town halls. ïIs he suggesting this is manufactured anger, that this is not real anger and real concern?
MR. SPICER: ïThanks. ïI think there’s a hybrid there. ïI think some people are clearly upset. ïBut there is a bit of professional protestor, manufactured base in there. ïBut obviously there are people that are upset. ïBut I also think that when you look at some of these districts and some of these things, that it is not a representation of a member’s district or -- it is a loud group, small group of people disrupting something, in many cases, for media attention. ïNo oyense.

It’s just -- I think that necessarily -- just because they're loud doesn't necessarily mean that there are many. ïAnd I think in a lot of cases that's what you're seeing. ï
Q ï ïDoes the President doubt that there is real anger --
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I just said that.
Q ï ï-- and real concern out there beyond just a few loud agitators, that there’s real concern that people may lose their healthcare?
MR. SPICER: ïBut see, I think that that's a false narrative. ïAnd I don't -- the President has been very clear. ïLook, you have to look at what our healthcare system is right now. ïIn so many counties around our nation, we've gone down to one provider. ïThat's not choice. ïThat's not access. ï

And then they're going in a lot of cases and they're saying, we're not taking Medicaid, we're
not taking TRICARE, we're not taking the insurance you used to have; the doctor that you used to have isn’t participating anymore. ïAnd, oh, by the way, states like Arizona, you've got over 100 percent increase in premiums -- 112 [percent] I think was the number there. ïIn many states, it’s double, triple -- double-digit. ï

And I think that the idea that we have to remember is that the American people got sold the Ayordable Care Act -- it’s neither ayordable or accessible. ïThey're losing their coverage and premiums are spiking. ïAnd so if people are truly worried about losing their coverage, they
should be applauding the President’s action for wanting to make sure that we put a system in place that does what they were supposed to have been promised a while back. ï

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

10/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov12 of 160

And I think that's -- that's what I think is missing from this dialogue. ïI’ve seen some folks

that were protesting in some of these things saying, I lost -- I’m on Obamacare, I’m going to lose my thing. ïAnd when they were asked how old they were, they were, oh, I’m 71, 72. ïWell, they're not on Obamacare. -- they're on Medicaid.

Q ï ïSo you think you're making it up?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, not they're making it up. ïBut what I’m getting at it is I think that there is a lot of blurring of the facts. ïAnd the reality is that some people aren’t on Obamacare. ïThey're on an employer-based system. ïThey're on Medicaid. ïThey're receiving their benefits through Medicare because of their age. ïAnd so they're in -- nothing. ïThey have no problems.ï

But I think in other cases, people are now being told that the plan that they're on is unsustainable; that these carriers throughout the country -- I mean, you just look at them, over and over again pulling out of the exchanges. ïThe reality is, is that they are losing their healthcare, but they're losing it under Obamacare because the exchanges are collapsing on themselves. ïCarriers are pulling out. ïPremiums are going up. ïAnd access is going down.

So the President's plan is actually going to do exactly what they were promised eight years ago and didn't get. ïSo for those who are worried, the answer is: ïHelp is on the way.
Q ï ïBut what is the plan? ïWe haven't seen what he's going to replace it with.
MR. SPICER: ïFirst, as the President made clear, we're going to have that out in the next couple weeks. ïHe's working on it. ïBut the goal, Jonathan, is this got jammed through a Democratic Congress, and then they told us you could read it azer we get it passed. ïSo taking our time, getting this right to achieve the goals that we set forth is probably the right thing to do, considering the experience that we had the last time.

Hallie.

Q ï ïSean, two questions for you. ïThe issue of transgender bathrooms wasn't one we heard a lot about from the President during the campaign. ïHe said at one point, Caitlyn Jenner could use whichever bathroom she wanted to at Trump Tower. ïSo why is this now a priority for the administration 40 days into oyice?

MR. SPICER: ïIt's not a priority. ïI think there's a case --ï

Q ï ïBut It's one of the first things --

MR. SPICER: ïBut let me answer the question. ïIt's not a priority. ïThere is a case pending in

the Supreme Court in which we have to decide whether or not to continue to issue guidance

to the CEoXuH.rAt.AïITtO'sMdAiCcLtEaOtDe-dBAbLyL DthECa.t.

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

11/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov13 of 160

The Obama administration had issued joint guidance from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. ïWe now have to decide whether or not this administration wants to continue that track that they were on. ïIt's plain and simple. ïIf we don't -- but there are problems, both in the legal and process way, in which that guidance was issued. ïAnd so

it's incumbent upon us to actually follow the law and to recognize that Title IX never talked about this. ïIt was enacted in 1972. ïThere was no discussion of this back then. ïAnd to

assume certain elements of the law were thought of back then with respect to this would be

completely preposterous.

Q ï ïAnd to be clear, Secretary DeVos is onboard with this?

MR. SPICER: ïYes, 100 percent. ïThank you.

Q ï ïSean, that was actually a clarification. ïThe second question is on Mexico. ïThe Secretary of State's trip that is tonight along with Secretary Kelly, obviously there have been tensions, right, between the Mexican President and President Trump. ïIs this a clean-up job for the Secretary of State?

MR. SPICER: ïNo. ïI think that President Peña Nieto and President Trump spoke -- again, the foreign ministers had several contacts with our stay. ïI would argue that we have a very healthy and robust relationship with the Mexican government and Mexican oyicials, and I think they would echo that same sentiment. ïPresident Peña Nieto has echoed that as well.

But I think the relationship with Mexico is phenomenal right now, and I think there's an unbelievable and robust dialogue between our two nations.

Margaret, and then I'll get you.

Q ï ïOn Syria, General Votel indicated today that the U.S. needs to take a larger share of the burden and perhaps send troops to Syria. ïHas the President discussed this with his national security team? ïAnd when does he --

MR. SPICER: ïI'm going to refer you back to DOD on that. ïI would just argue that I think that you've seen the President talk about safe harbors in Syria with several foreign leaders who have shared his --ï

Q ï ïSafe havens.

MR. SPICER: ïSafe havens, thank you. ïAnd that is an area at the top of the President's

foreign policy agenda that he has continued to talk to leaders, especially in the Middle east, about, trying to make sure that we deal with that issue in that area right now. ïBut I'm not going to get ahead of the DOD on this. ïAnd then when they have recommendations, they'll

make them forward to us.

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

12/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov14 of 160

Q ï ïIs there an NSC -- has the President spoken to --ï

MR. SPICER: ïLook, I will -- if I have an update, I'll give it to you tomorrow.

Go ahead.
Q ï ïPresident Trump and the Canadian Prime Minister launchedïthe U.S. and Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs. ïCan you talk a little bit about how the council is growing and transpiring? ïWhat's the status of it?
MR. SPICER: ïI think stay is beginning to implement the President's agenda. ïIt occurred, what, six, seven days ago. ïAnd so it's starting to work through the process and we'll have further updates as it goes forward. ïBut I know that he continues to be in touch with Prime Minister Trudeau, and our stay continues to work on the back end to make this happen.

Zeke.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïI have two questions for you. ïOne, earlier in your conversation with Jon, does the White House not have confidence in its Cabinet Secretaries if it's looking sort of over their shoulders? ïDoes the White House not -- does the President not trust his Cabinet Secretaries, appointees and agency administrators to stay -- to find people who agree with the President's agenda?
MR. SPICER: ïNo, not at all. ïI think there's a big diyerence. ïThe President named these folks because they're unbelievably qualified individuals. ïPart of it, though, is that you're staying major departments and I think we've got somewhere in the area of 5,000 positions to fill. ïAnd when you're filtering through a good number of people, I don't even think the Secretaries, at some degree, depending on the department, have a full background on some of these individuals.
And so as they get pumped through the pipeline, there are questions. ïAnd, again, there are areas that are of key priority to the President that he campaigned on. ïAnd I think that when he wants to make sure that certain of those individuals who are going to be overseeing key priorities that he promised the American people have somebody who is not only qualified but agrees with and shares the President's vision to fix whatever problem that was or fulfill whatever vision that he articulated.
But I think that that -- I mean, it would almost be malpractice not to do that. ïTo allow people to fill a job, a political appointee job, who don't share the vision and agenda of the President of the United States would almost be -- I mean, it would be silly on its face to suggest this.

I don't think there's any administration in past history that would literally, willingly, take on

someboEdXHy. wAAhToOwMaACsLaEdOaD-mBAaLnL tDlEyCo. pposed or spoke ou1t3 specificallyNaOgRaTiHnWsEtSwThIMaMtItGhReANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

13/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov15 of 160

President was seeking to do, and then have them fulfill a job to carry out that mission. ïIt

just -- it doesn't seem as though it makes any sense.

Yes.
Q ï ïSecond thing real quick. ïWe're coming up on a week away from the deadline the President ordered for his review of the counter-ISIS strategy. ïWhat’s the status of that review? ïThe President tweeted over the weekend that he was meeting with a bunch of generals.
MR. SPICER: ïYes.
Q ï ïIs that regarding that review?
MR. SPICER: ïI think General Dunford and Secretary Mattis have begun providing him updates on that. ïI know that the new National Security Advisor is getting brought into that process and continuing to do updates, so we’ll have further updates. ïBut the team has been working on it since the President issued the guidance.ï

Yes.
Q ï ïAs far as the second executive order is concerned, what is the White House doing diyerently in terms of consulting with various departments to make certain that this second executive order passes constitutional scrutiny?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think we've done a few things. ïOne is, I think we've been very clear about understanding what the court said in trying to tailor that specifically while achieving the same goals of keeping America safe and ensuring that people don't come into this country that seek to do us harm. ïThat's number one.
Number two is, we continue -- and that order is basically completed. ïI think what we're now doing is working with the various agencies and departments to make sure that the implementation of that is done in an extremely smooth way. ïSo we have looked at it from both a process standpoint, as well as a legal standpoint. ïAnd I think it’s achieving the goals.

But again, I would also mention that, on the merits, I believe that the first order did just that. ïIt was written in a way -- and I think ultimately we will continue to prevail on that -because it is written in a way that is clear and consistent with U.S. code and the authority that the President has to protect the nation.

Katie. Q ï ïSean --

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

14/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov16 of 160

Q ï ïNo matter what happens, as it relates to the second executive order, it’s almost likely to

face a legal challenge.

MR. SPICER: ïSure.ï

Q ï ïAre you concerned that the President’s prior remarks as it relates to the judiciary is going to allow him to get a fair hearing by the judicial branch as it relates to the second executive order?

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, absolutely. ïI think that --ï

Q ï ïWhy do you say that?

MR. SPICER: ïBecause I think that you've seen it happen in the Massachusetts case. ïI mean, at the end of the day, you look at the law and what the order does. ïAnd I think, again, you may have -- in the case of the 9th Circuit, we continue to disagree with that. ïI think the President has pointed out you don't have to be that high up in grade school to recognize what the code says, what the authority that is granted to him, and then what the order does.

I think the things that they brought out in that order -- in one of the cases, they suggested there have been no people that have entered within the seven countries. ïAnd a quick cursory look found upwards of close to 20 people that had come in. ïSo some of the basis for which they decided the case on doesn't actually pass muster. ïAnd I think any other judge or
judges that look at that order or the one that will be put forward will come to the same
conclusion.

Katie.

Q ï ïSean, I wanted to ask about the President’s budget priorities. ïWhat specifically is the President increasing spending on? ïWhere is he decreasing spending? ïAnd how much money specifically is he asking for the 5,000 new Border Patrol agents he’s asked for?

MR. SPICER: ïSo I’m going to refer you back to Margaret’s question, and then we’ll have something in mid-March as we put that out. ïBut I’m not going to get ahead of Director Mulvaney.

Q ï ï(Inaudible.)

MR. SPICER: ïNo, I mean, it’s not -- look, he just had a meeting where he’s continued to work that out. ïThey're providing him back-and-forth. ïThat's the idea of crazing this budget. ïAnd until we put it out on paper, I don't want to get ahead of --ï

Q ï ïSean, can I follow up on Mexico?

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

15/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov17 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïYes.

Q ï ïThank you very much. ïBack to Mexico -- Videgaray and many oyicials have said this morning that they're not going to accept the directives that were put out by the White House and by DHS yesterday, and they may not take anyone that's not a Mexican immigrant. ïWhat are you guys doing to do with those people that Mexico will not accept?

MR. SPICER: ïI think Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Kelly are going to have a great discussion down there, and to walk through the implementation of the executive order. ïBut I feel very confident that any country who has a citizen that comes into this country, and that we send back, we’ll make sure that they comply with this.

David.
Q ï ïTwo questions about immigration. ïOne, the President has talked a number of times about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes during the election, in his mind. ïYou guys have promised to look into that. ïIt seems like there was no mention of that in any of these directives, to look for these immigrants. ïDoes the President still believe this is a national security problem?ï
MR. SPICER: ïYeah, and Vice President Pence will lead a task force on this.
Q ï ïWhere would we stand on that, though?
MR. SPICER: ïHe named a task force, and the Vice President is starting to gather names and individuals to be part of it.
Q ï ïOn the other question I had about the DACA program, yesterday you suggested, well, we have to go azer hardened criminals and major national security threats first. ïBut during the campaign, the President talked about DACA as being an unconstitutional executive amnesty. ïDoes he still think it was an unconstitutional use of President Obama’s powers? ïAnd if so, does he plan --ï
MR. SPICER: ïI think -- yeah, I think -- and I said this yesterday: ïThe President is very clear about his priorities with respect to immigration. ïYesterday was focused on going azer people who are a concern -- a public safety concern. ïAnd we're going to walk through this very --
Q ï ï-- unconstitutional?
MR. SPICER: ïWe will get back to you on that. ïRight now the focus is on keeping the country safe and making sure that we walk through.

Shane.

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

16

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

16/23

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00P1r3es5s -BJriLefRing byDPorecssuSmecerentatry6S8ea-n2SpicFeri,le2/2d2/200317/,1#314/1| w7hitehPouasge.geov18 of 160

Q ï ïI want to ask on immigration, as well. ïGiven all of the push on deporting illegal

immigrants, I wanted to see if this White House and President Trump have any interest in

curtailing legal immigration going forward.

MR. SPICER: ïAgain, we got to look at this from a priority level. ïRight now there’s millions of people in this country that are in the country illegally. ïI think the focus continues to be that 800,000 or 900,000 that have already had an order to have them removed and get them processed through in a way that continues to keep America safe.

Legal immigration, obviously, is a completely separate subject, and that includes visa reform and all that other stuy. ïThe President has talked about that. ïHe’s talked about it with business leaders -- H-1B visas, et cetera. ïYou're going to see more of that coming. ïBut I think there is a prioritization of how we deal with immigration -- both illegal and then legal. ïAnd we’ll have more on that later.
I got to run. ïThank you, guys, very much. ïWe’ll see you tomorrow. ïTake care.
ENDï 1:30 P.M. EST

¬ŧ­ 

HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN USA.gov Privacy Policy Copyright Policy

EXH. AA TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2222017-14

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

17/23

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 19 of 160
EXHIBIT BB

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a0sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

ome Politics S Opinion Business ntertainment Tech Science ealth Travel i est le Worl On Air

10 BEST CREDIT CARDS 2017 Compare Top O×ers & Apply Online.

I ST

DA S

Miller e or er ill e responsive to the u icial ruling

ep on DeSantis ongress has gotten o to a slo start

Published ebruary 21, 2017 o News.com
This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," February 21, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MCCALLUM, OX NEWS ANCHOR: Breaking tonight, we are live in Jacksonville, lorida for a special immigration town hall, on the same day that President Trump s Department of Homeland Security issued two very important memos designed to crack down on illegal immigrants on our southern border. Welcome to day 33 everybody of The irst 100. I m Martha MacCallum and this was President Trump ust days here in Jacksonville before the election.

BEGIN IDEO CLIP

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The border crisis is the worst it s ever been. It s a national emergency. They get caught again, they go to ail for five years, guess what s going to happen They re not coming back, folks. Now, our people don t want to do it. Our weak, weak politicians don t want to do it.

A Trump administration will cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities. We will end illegal immigration. We are going to stop drugs from pouring into your communities and poisoning our youths and everybody else. And we will deport all criminal aliens, uickly from our country.

END IDEO CLIP

MCCALLUM: States like lorida, cities like Jacksonville, part of a movement behind the president s victory, drawn to him by a host of issues, not the least of which was talk like that ust days before the November election when, as you remember, nobody thought he was going to win, but those ideas resonated in a big way and we are here tonight to speak to people who helped to elect Mr. Trump and we ll ask them how they think it s going so far in the first 100 days and their e pectations that were set on immigration policy, its impact on obs, on safety, on terrorism, and on the culture of the communities that we all live in across this country.

The November e it polling from lorida helps to tell the story of why we are here tonight. Among 10 percent who said

immigration was the most important issue for them on Election Day, 69 percent of those voted for Donald Trump. Among

the 23 percent who said that most important issue to them was illegal immigrants working in the U.S. have to be deported

to theirEhXoHm. BeBcToOuMntAryC,L9E2ODp-eBrAcLeLntDoEfCt.hose individuals voted fo1r Donald TrumpN.OWRTeHrWe EgSoTinIgMMtoIGgReAt NtoT aRlIlGoHfTtShaPtRinOJmEComT ents

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

1/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a1sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

with a town hall meeting that includes lawmakers, law enforcement, and lots of average voters who ve gathered here

tonight to have their voices heard.

But, first, we go to the White House and Senior Advisor to the President, Stephen Miller, who helped to craft the president s controversial e ecutive order calling for more rigorous vetting of immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries. Mr. Miller, welcome. Good to have you here tonight.

STEPHEN MILLER, AD ISOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Hey, it s great to be here. Thank you.

MCCALLUM: So, everybody is anticipating the ne t rollout of the ne t e ecutive order, which is supposed to clarify some of the issues that were perhaps wrong with the first one and then got too caught up in the courts. So how is it going to be different this time

MILLER: Well, nothing was wrong with the first e ecutive order. However, there was a flawed udicial ruling that was erroneous. The president recently read to the statute from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which clearly states, he has the power as president to impose any restrictions he deems necessary when it s in the national interest.

However, because of the e igency of the situation and the need to protect our country, and to protect our citi ens, the president is going to be issuing a new e ecutive action based off of the udicial ruling, flawed though it may be, to protect our country and to keep our people safe, and that is going to be coming very soon.

MCCALLUM: All right. Inaudible is 18-year-old, but he wants to know specifically how the second-order is going to be different.

MILLER: Well, one of the big differences that you re going to see in the e ecutive order is that it s going to be responsive to the udicial ruling, which didn t e ist previously. And so these are mostly minor technical differences. undamentally, you re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.

I want to try and broaden the conversation here and not get lost in all this technical minutia. Here s the reality. The United States admits more people than any other country on the face of the earth. We ve got a serious problem in our country of terrorism, radicali ation, and serious problems of people oining ISIS, oining terror groups, oining Al- aeda, and committing or attempting to commit acts of crime and terror against our nation. We have seen a huge synapses between this --

MCCALLUM: Let me ump in on you there for a moment.

MILLER: eah.

MCCALLUM: Let me note that -- because here s one of the problems. Now, I know that you think the order was fine the way it was issued initially. But courts disagree. In fact, 48 courts took issued with it and that s why it s halted right now as a result of that process that happens in this country.

So, now you re about to issue another order and one of the things that would need to be addressed, it sounds like, is proving that the seven countries that you have targeted are indeed the right ones to target and that you have merit and reason for targeting those specific ones, rather than, let say, Saudi Arabia, right

MILLER: Well, the reality is these seven countries were designated by President Obama and by Congress in 2015 and 2016. The reality is that the seven countries -- look at emen, look at Libya, look Syria, look at the conditions in these countries. This is an assessment based on the threat that these countries pose today and going into the future. We ve had do ens and do ens of terrorism cases from these seven countries, case after case after case.

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

2/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a2sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

But more fundamentally, it s the position of our intelligence community that these countries today pose a threat to our

country moving forward and the president is acting decisively to protect our country from these threats. And the rulings

from those courts were flawed, erroneous, and false. The president s actions were clearly legal and constitutional and

consistent with the long-standing traditions of presidents in the past to e ercise the authority in the Immigration and

Nationality Act to suspend immigration when it poses a threat to our security. And that s what the president will do. In the

ne t few days, we will roll out the details of what that action will be.

MCCALLUM: And we understand -- I m sorry. I think we have a little bit of a delay, so I don t mean to be stepping on you. But I do understand that that s your perspective and that s the White House s argument and we ll see how that ne t inaudible .

One more uestion to you from one of our viewers for tonight if you will. Jack Capra who is a veteran in our audience this evening, says how far is the administration willing to go to secure the southern border Will the administration deploy the U.S. military to do so

MILLER: Well, right now we have 20,000 fantastic border patrol agents who are doing a great ob. But, Martha, I really want to try and broaden this conversation and get to the core of the issues here.

Whether we re talking about the new e ecutive action and in the ne t few days we will be able to share the details what that will be and how it s responsive to the court s ruling. Whether we re talking about the southern border, whether we re talking about our guest worker programs, here s the core issue. It is the ob of the president and the ob of our government to protect the hard-working people of this country, to protect their obs, to protect their wages, to protect their communities, to keep them safe from terrorism, and crime, and drugs, and wage depression.

Uncontrolled migration over many years has undermined wages, working prospects for people of all backgrounds, and all walks of life and it s made us less safe. Proper controls will raise wages, improve employment, help migrant workers enter the middle-class who are already living here, and keep us safe from threats of terror. And this president, and this administration is fully committed to doing what is necessary, lawful, ust, decent, and right, to take care of and to defend hard-working, patriotic citi ens and their communities.

MCCALLUM: All right. Well, we look very much forward to that second e ecutive order and we ll watch the path and see if it makes it through the courts and that, you know, the e ecutive branch, the udicial branch, can find their way to put this together. Thank you very much, Stephen Miller, for oining us from the White House tonight.

MILLER: Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thanks.

MCCALLUM: Good to have you with us. Thank you.

So let s bring in Jacksonville native and lorida congressman Ron DeSantis who is one of the first to stand by President Trump s original order. Good to have you here tonight, Congressman.

REP. RON DESANTIS, R- LORIDA: Thanks for coming down to lorida.

MCCALLUM: It s great to be here. Thank you for having us. So, one of the interesting comments from General elly when he spoke about this the other day was that, you know, he wanted the second e ecutive order to take place in a way that we would not find people backed up in our airports. So he was acknowledging that there was some issue in this rollout. What are your thoughts on that

DESANTIS: Well, I think that s right. I mean, you have e amples of, like a grandmother who is a green card holder coming back from one of these countries, that s not where the threat is. The threats are with people who are unvetted. These are countries that are either state sponsors of terrorism, or overrun in large degree by terrorist groups. And if you look-- since 9/11, the biggest change in the terrorist threat has been how much it s e panded in different countries. ou have Somalia, other parts of Africa --

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

3/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a3sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

MCCALLUM: So you think more than those seven should be on the list

DESANTIS: Well, I think that -- if you read the e ecutive order, that s a 90-day period. They are also going to be talking with other countries. So people mentioned Saudi Arabia, so maybe Saudi Arabia doesn t have procedures that were -- that are acceptable but -- so maybe there will be changes there. But I think we have to err on the side of caution. And my view is we have immigration system, but that immigration system shouldn t make the American people assume risk for their safety by us bringing in people we don t know.

MCCALLUM: Let s bring in some of our great audience that we have with us tonight. Let me start by going to Jack Capra, who is with us tonight. ou know, you listened to this conversation, Jack, and you re a veteran, so we thank you for your service.

JAC CAPRA, WOUNDED ETERAN AND LORIDA RESIDENT: Thank you. I actually used to work with Congressman. eah.

CROSSTAL

MCCALLUM: -- so you re paying attention.

CAPRA: eah. I used to work with the congressman in Guantanamo few years ago. We both had duty there, so.

MCCALLUM: Well, welcome. It s great to have the two of you here together tonight and good to talk to you about these serious issues. ou listen to Stephen Miller from the White House. What did you think about what he had to say

CAPRA: Well, I think his main argument was right on point and I agree with that. I think this is, you know, securing our borders as a national security issue. It s not ust -- of course, it s also about economics, but it is a national security issue and it s the federal government s ob to keep our people safe, keep our citi ens safe from e ternal and internal threats. And so I think immigration is a big contributor to that.

MCCALLUM: eah. ou know, obviously, the rollout of it didn t go uite as planned. ou know, it brings me sort of a general uestion that I want to put to all of you as we get going tonight. As you look at so far the first 100 days, we re on day 33 right now. So I m going to ask you to raise your hand for three different answers, O .

So the first one would be, so far, are you, A -- no, you don t raise your hand yet because I want you to know all the options. ou can either be, A, thrilled. I m really happy with how it s going. Or, B, you know, it s O , but I think there s room for
improvement. And, C, I am a little disappointed. O .

So raise your hand if you would say that you are thrilled with how it s going so far. Wow, that s a lot of folks. Look at that. O , what about choice B, which is I m glad, but, you know, I d like to see a little bit of improvement around the edges. O . So how many of you are disappointed, not happy with how it is going so far A couple up here, one in the back there, one back there. O , all right. We re going to get around to you and hear some of your reasons for all of that. ou know, what do you think about that

DESANTIS: Well, look, I think that Congress is --

MCCALLUM: Which category do you fit in, first of all

DESANTIS: Well, I think Congress has gotten off to a slow start.

MCCALLUM: eah.

DESANTIS: I think the president has done much better than we have. He s following through with what he said he would do and we are kind of --

MCCAELXLHU.MBB: TWOoMwA.CLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

4/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a4sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

DESANTIS: We in the Congress were kind of getting to what we said we do, but we haven t uite gotten of it. I think we

will, but I think they ve done a better start. It s also important to say, they re not confirming his nominees. He doesn t have

guy -- he s got like a fraction of a government in place because the Democrats in the Senate are basically trying to stall as

many people as possible.

MCCALLUM: So, let me go to somebody over here. ris oproski, who is the mother of three and you think that we need to put a pause on emigration. So, are you -- how do you feel about the president so far and do you think Congress -- do you agree with Congressman DeSantis that they re not pulling their weight

RIS OPROS I, LORIDA RESIDENT: I am thrilled with what President Trump is doing. Congress, you know, they need to get on board and specifically, the Democrats. He needs his cabinet, his full cabinet. And they re ust seemed to be stopping him at every turn. There s got to be a discussion open. They ve got to be willing to give a little bit.

MCCALLUM: So you re nodding your head there. Who -- is anybody in particular in Congress that you re, you know, disappointed in so far And, you know, would you like to give them a message tonight

CLAIRE RAN , LORIDA RESIDENT: How much time do you have

MCCALLUM: I got about 48 minutes. Go ahead.

RAN : I would say we finally have someone in office who is doing something probably not even -- the last president I can think has done anything like this was Abraham Lincoln, who is trying to reunite the country. And that s what we voted for him to do. And that s what he is doing.

Congress isn t getting behind us. I say, term limits. That way you can clean house, ust like he s doing draining the swamp. There s too many in there right now that, you know, are not doing their ob. Stop voting -- McCain is a pain.

DESANTIS: I am the leader of the term limits movement in the House, so we do need to do that.

MCCALLUM: All right. So you re on your third term. So how many terms should he get How many terms

DESANTIS: Well, our amendment is three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate.

MCCALLUM: O .

DESANTIS: The same on Trump endorsed during the campaign. So, let s get a vote and let see what we can do.

MCCALLUM: All right. We re ust getting rolling here. Great ob opening this conversation up here. So, coming to the ne t moment, ust today, the Trump administration ordered more border agents, 5,000 more, also, 10,000 more ICE agents and plans to move ahead with the controversial wall plan on our southern border, so the fallout and the debate from the floor here coming up ne t.

COMMERCIAL BREA

MCCALLUM: Breaking tonight, ust hours before the doors opened on our town hall meeting here in Jacksonville, lorida, the Department of Homeland Security announced the brand-new priorities when it comes to their plan to deport illegal immigrants.

The two memos from DHS Secretary John elly today say impart that his agency is going to use public safety to guide their decisions, while the White House made a point of saying that there will be no longer special e ceptions to the rules. Watch.

BEGIN IDEO CLIP

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

5/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a5sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETAR : or so long, the people at ICE and CBP had their handcuffed

behind them when they were going to deal with the mission of their ob. The last administration had so many carve outs for

who could be and who couldn t be ad udicated that it made it very difficult for the customs and enforcement people to do

their ob and enforce the laws of this country. But, right now, what we ve done is to make sure that they have the ability

and the guidance and the resources to do what they -- what their mission is. And that s it, plain and simple.

END IDEO CLIP

MCCALLUM: Joining me now, Sarah Saldana. She was the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, director under President Obama. And rancisco Hernande is an Immigration Attorney. Welcome. It s great to have both of you with us tonight.

SARAH SALDANA, ORMER ICE DIRECTOR, 2014-2017: Thank you.

RANCISCO HERNANDE , IMMIGRATION ATTORNE : Thank you for having me.

MCCALLUM: Sarah, he was calling you out a bit there.

SALDANA: es. I guess he was. But let me tell you something that is maybe not clearly known. I have been a law enforcement officer. I was a prosecutor in Dallas. I was the United States Attorney in Dallas. And I think -- significantly, I think that s one of the reasons that I was selected to be the director of ICE, because I believe in law enforcement. I believe in rational law enforcement. So, that is my focus while I was director and I think we went about it in a good way, given the fact that we had resources that were not unlimited.

MCCALLUM: All right. So, he s -- Sean Spicer was saying that under your direction and others, border enforcement officials under the Obama administration that people weren t allowed to do their obs. That the agents felt that they were handcuffed, that they couldn t deport, that they couldn t detain to the e tent that they wanted to. Is that fair

SALDANA: The law is the law. So, with respect to detention and all of those things, we were guided by the law. We were not guided by people s emotions or feelings or thoughts. We were guided by the law. We had priorities, ust like this e ecutive order has priorities. We didn t e empt people. I guess one could look at it that way, but one could say that about the e ecutive order, as well.

We focused on serious criminals. And, in fact, our numbers went substantially up with respect to the portion of people that we were removing or putting in removal proceedings, being convicted criminals or people who are not in the country legally and there s a reason to remove them. Again, I am weighing as a manager, resources versus the threat to public safety.

MCCALLUM: So when you say resources, would you love to have had the 10,000 additional agents that John elly is now going to get

SALDANA: It would have been -- we certainly could have responded to Congressman DeSantis, wherever he is, when he drove me on the hill about why we weren t departing more people. It certainly would have helped in that regard.

The important thing to me is not volume. Ask any law enforcement officer, the important thing to me is substance. Are we protecting the American public by focusing on people who have no business being here, committing additional crimes, and working against the interest of the American people

MCCALLUM: rancisco, today, you know, ust going through the headlines and looking at different web sites, you know, the administration -- Trump administration cracks down. Illegal immigrants are scared. They re nervous about what they re hearing today and yet he also said that DACA would stay in place. That children who came here with their parents at a young age would not be affected by this. So what s your reaction to these two memos today

HERNANDE : Well, first of all, I can t argue with Ms. Saldana on ualifications. I feel like a thorn between two roses, O .

But, uite frankly, President Trump has written a blank check that he can t cash. Just like the congressman said, he s

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

6/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a6sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

going to have to get the money from somewhere. ou can t ust say we re going to hire 20,000 agents inaudible Ms.

Saldana. ou got to have the people.

No one is going to argue about whether you should deport people that commit repeated felonies, you re ust barking up the wrong tree. But uite frankly, you ve got to do something to get that money and we don t have the money. So we do have to focus, as Director Saldana said on the important things.

The deferred actions, yes, dreamers, Gob bless. Let s go and give them a green card, something to work towards, something to earn that were brought into no fault of their own, no one can argue about that. So they re in limbo, but you know what, we have --

MCCALLUM: But he didn t pay them about ph . He said that s off the table.

HERNANDE : That s off the table --

MCCALLUM: Unless they have a criminal record.

HERNANDE : And the interesting thing is, you know, if President Trump argued that President Obama did not have the e ecutive or constitutional power to issue that e ecutive order, well then, neither does he have the e ecutive. So what s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, that s our fear. If we re going to go with those e ecutive orders for President Trump, we ve got to fund them. It costs money.

MCCALLUM: Let s get some uestions from our group here. Hatice Iaconangelo. I m sure I got that wrong. So what do you think about what you re hearing here tonight

HATICE IANCONANGELO, LORIDA RESIDENT: I am horrified. I m horrified. This is not the country I emigrated to. Sure, when I first emigrated 26 years ago --

MCCALLUM: rom

IANCONANGELO: rom Germany. I am a native Berliner. I grew up with a wall. I know what the wall does to families. I witnessed people getting shot crossing over the wall. And I see us as a nation going towards that again. It s horrifying. Little by little, we are getting there. Berlin didn t start out ust with a wall coming up instantly, the Russians shooting, everybody. It starts gradually. And it gets worse and worse.

I want us to come together as a nation and have compassion for people. Don t ust shut yourself off from that what you don t understand, what you don t know. Why don t each one of you who are against immigration may be get to know a refugee Get to know an immigrant and see where they have come from and what they have gone through in life.

MCCALLUM: All right. Let me get a response from Bill orach who is -- you re shaking your head pretty hard there, sir. Why

BILL ORACH, ST. JOHNS COUNT COP CHAIRMAN: I was in Berlin when the wall was up. And the wall was meant to keep people in, because the communist system was so horrible. This wall is being designed to protect our borders. We re a sovereign nation. We should have sovereign borders. We are a nation of laws. If we don t have the rule of law, we don t have sovereignty.

IANCONANGELO: I am not against protecting the people here, absolutely not. But you don t reali e, America is already so safe. This is the safest place I feel on earth. I travel overseas every year. The law enforcement does a great ob. The customs office --

MCCALLUM: Let me get an answer from Elvira and then we re going to go, so uickly

EL IRA SALA AR, MEGA T. . ANCHOR: Good to see you. I think the greatness of a nation is measured not by the si e

of its gEuXnHs., BbButThOoMwAwCLeEtOreDa-Bt AthLeL DmEoCs.t vulnerable members of7society, and inNthOiRsTcHaWseE,SiTlleIMgMalIsGRorANthTeRuIGndHoTcSuPmReOnJtEeCdT. I

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

7/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a7sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

think that maybe we should take a look at immigration issue in a different way.

We should go to the root of the problem. And the root of the problem is very simple. It s called Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. President Trump has an outstanding opportunity. He is a businessman. He knows how to build coalitions. He knows cultural sensitivities from other countries. He can go to those three countries that are e porting the ma ority of the people that are knocking on our borders and help them put their house in order.

Then, we could avoid or save the money that we re going to be investing on the 20 million -- 20 billion that will cost to build a wall along the Me ican border. And we could earmark those 280 million that we re giving to those three countries. Earmarked that for what Nicaragua did. No one really talks about why Nicaraguans are not coming and knocking on our border, because the -- and I m not a friends of the Nicaraguan government, but they knew how to do it. And they could help us solve the problem. That s another angle.

MCCALLUM: All right, thank you very much. So, officials in Miami-Dade, lorida got national attention when they decided to stand against becoming a so-called sanctuary city. We will speak to the man behind that very controversial decision here in lorida coming up ne t.

COMMERCIAL BREA

MARTHA MACCALLUM, THE IRST 100 DA S HOST: So a point of hot contention in the immigration debate involves so-called sanctuary cities scattered throughout the country. These are cities and towns which offer protections to illegal immigrants by limiting cooperation with federal authorities. I want to start with our audience panel, and I ll ask you all a
uestion first which is a broad uestion in terms of priorities. It goes to what we re talking about earlier. So I will give you three options and I want you to pick the one that you think should be the GOP priority right now, or the government s priority, or for the whole country priority, regardless of your background. So choice number one will be immigration and the wall, choice number two would be ta reform, and choice number three would be Obamacare repeal and replace. So this goes to what we re talking about over here before in terms of what they re doing first. So if you want them to address immigration and the wall first, raise your hand. Maybe a third, maybe less. Ta reform. Maybe half. All right, Obamacare, repeal and replace. So, I d say, closer to a third of third but I would say ta reform was the winner. So you want ta reform to be a priority for the folks on Capitol Hill. So maybe they re listening to what you re saying here tonight. So, in terms of immigration, I want to bring our guest, Diane Scheriff, and her daughter, Savannah. ou were originally from San
rancisco, you live in this area now, right

DIANE SCHERI : Right.

MACCALLUM: But you believe that it s not true that the obs that are being done by illegal immigrants are obs that Americans don t want to do.

SCHERI : es and no. I mean, I think when I lived in California, I had a nanny at first that didn t have a green card. I didn t know that. She was a very hard worker. But, there again, I think there are obs that are open-- that would be open to Americans, that are taken by illegal immigrants. And I ust feel strongly that that is a huge deal in our country, especially
lorida, since we have such an influ of illegal immigrants.

MACCALLUM: Savannah, what about the issues of sanctuary cities

SA ANNAH SCHRI : Well, you know.

MACCALLUM: Having grown up in San rancisco, you know, I know you lived in a city that is a sanctuary city. Don t be nervous. Particularly understandable, I scared you. Put that mic in front of your face. It s uite all right. I know the feeling.

SCHERI : Sanctuary cities, you know, maybe I ll sound like a bad person here, but I m frustrated that we even have them. Because, I mean, honestly.

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

8/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a8sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

APPLAUSE

MACCALLUM: That s what Savannah was going to say.
SCHERI : It doesn t make sense to me. And the fact that they re growing now, not going away come. And again, I m a Californian, I live there. But San rancisco, L.A., Oakland, it doesn t make any sense to not work with local law enforcement when it comes to immigrants and criminals.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. I m oined now by the mayor of Miami- Dade, Mayor Gimene , and Laura Wilkenson. We ve spoken before Laura. And Laura has a tough personal story. ou lost your son to a person who was here illegally. And I know you have stood ne t to President Trump many times as he has talked about Angel Moms. So you took a tough stance and said we are not going to be a sanctuary city anymore in Miami. Has there been a backlash against that in your area
CARLOS GIMENE , MA OR MIAMI-DADE: es, there has been. And we have very vocal opposition to what we did. But, you know, what I say to people that tell me that, hey, I really like what you did, I tell them that, you know, I really did a lot less than what you thought I did. And the people that are vocally against it, I say, you know, I did a lot less than what you thought I did. Really, all we did is we labeled a sanctuary city by the Obama administration and the ustice department because we were re uesting reimbursement from the federal government for detainer re uests. And what I did is I said, we know longer need to have that voucher from the federal government saying that they re going to pay us for our costs for detaining these people of interest to immigration. That s all we did. And by doing that, it basically took us off the list of being a sanctuary city. Miami- Dade County has never thought of itself as a sanctuary city. Even when we pass that resolution back in 2014, we didn t think that that would place us as a sanctuary city. So, basically, taking that off, basically now -- and now my.
MACCALLUM: The financial decision.
GIMENE : es, obviously, because we were being threatened with millions of dollars in federal funding that we need to provide services for the 2.7 million people of Miami-Dade County.
MACCALLUM: Laura, the president said that he is not going -- he is going to respect DACA. How did you feel about that
LAURA WIL ENSON: Well, I believe there is going to be a process no matter how you do it. Somebody is going to be inconvenienced. This law -- I mean, without the immigration laws being enforced, this country has run amok. At any way that he doesn t, there is going to be an inconvenience to people. But, for myself, I think if you re not bearing your child in the ground and turning around and walking away, it is not an inconvenience that you can t deal with.
APPLAUSE
MACCALLUM: In terms of your son and your situation, that young man was brought here by his parents.
WIL ENSON: es. He was a dreamer, brought here when he was ten from Beli e. He had been charged with the crime of harassment but not convicted. And then, he murdered Joshua while he was out on bond for that. He should never have gotten a bond at the very least. They re a flight risk. And you don t want to wait until they murder your kid, until you say, O , time-out, now you are in trouble. It s ridiculous. Nobody gets sanctuary from the law. There is nothing I could do and be given sanctuary from it, and there is no reason for anybody else to have that, as well.
APPLAUSE

MACCALLUM: Do you believe that you re getting somewhere with your cause

WIL ENSON: Absolutely, yes. Mr. Trump had said he would put a crime victim in -- a program in place. It s called oice, I

believeE.XHA.nBdBitTsOtMoAhCeLlpEOvDic-tBimALsLliDkEeCm. yself, the real victims.

A9nd

this

gentleman earlier talked about getting
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

some of the
PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

9/16

206-957-8611

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to2a9sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

money, you know, if you can defund sanctuary cities, there comes the money. He can also take the money away from the

325 agencies in this country that help illegal aliens -- I mean, help them navigate the system. There is not one place or

one program in place to help myself.

APPLAUSE

MACCALLUM: Thank you, Laura. Good to have you both here tonight. So we re coming to you tonight from a state where there are many obs that go to legal and illegal immigrants. And when we come back, we are going to hear from our audience about the president s pledge to put America first. How do they think that s going We ll ask them right after this.

APPLAUSE

MACCALLUM: So when President Trump campaigned on the slogan of America first, a lot of that message was about bringing obs back to American workers. But are they prepared to take the low wage obs taken by illegal and legal immigrants Joining us now, Javier Palomere , he s president of the U.S.-Hispanic chamber of commerce, and on President Trump s diversity coalition. Although, he was a Hillary Clinton fan at the beginning, and Cindy Nava, a dreamer and Democratic national committee fellow. Welcome to both of you. Good to have you here today. So, Javier, first of all, you re a Hillary Clinton supporter. What made you change your tune

JA IER PALOMARE , PRESIDENT O THE U.S.-HISPANIC CHAMBER O COMMERCE: Well, you know, the reality of it is that -- back then, when we were convinced that our side was going to win, we asked of Donald Trump that he honored the will of the people and that he respect the results of this election. The reality of it is, he won, he is now the 45th president of the United States of America, and I m going to do everything I can to live up to the e act same thing we asked of him. I m going to honor the will of the people. I m going to honor the results of this election.

APPLAUSE

PALOMARE : And me and my association, a 4.1 million Hispanic-owned firms in this country that contribute over 668 billion to the American economy are going to do everything we can to help this administration move our country forward. At a time that I think we need to collaborate to move in the right direction.

MACCALLUM: Cindy, you re a dreamer.

CIND NA A, DREAMER: I am.

MACCALLUM: So, what do you think about what happened today, and the e emption for DACA children, like yourself And do you believe that there is -- you re talking about common ground. Is there common ground And do you think that this administration wants to find it And do you think the resistors and the never Trumpers also want to

NA A: ou know, Martha, I really think that this is a first step towards what really needs to happen, which is to address comprehensive immigration reform. And this is truly surprising I think for many of us that President Trump decided to keep DACA intact. And that s great and that s good. But, right now, there s a lot to fear out in the communities. There s actually some dreamers that have been targeted. And we have families. So what s happening to our families, you know, that s always a concern. So ust because we may be feeling a little bit sick here, does not mean that the community is throughout the country are. And DACA comes with many benefits such as a ban on parole, which many people are not familiar with. But advance parole is something that we can re uest through humanitarian clause, educational, or other -- you know, there s three clauses, and I was able to get that because my grandmother was ill in Me ico, and she was dying. And I was able to spend the five last days of her life with her.

MACCALLUM: I want to get a couple of our friends up here. And, again, Earline Shipper, so she s talking about families and keeping people together, what do you say

EARLINE SHIPPER, LORIDA RESIDENT: I think it s a wonderful idea that we keep families together. I m happy that this

particuElaXrHd. eBcBisTiOonMwACaLsEmODad-BeA.LBLuDtEICs.till think that immigration10is a very seriouNsOsRiTtuHaWtiEoSnTthIMaMt hIGaRsAtNoTbReIGcoHnTtSroPllReOdJaEnCdT we

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

10/16

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to3a0sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

have to take care of illegals coming into the country that are going to cause harm and we should send them back.

MACCALLUM: Eric, what do you think

APPLAUSE

ERIC WEST, LORIDA RESIDENT: The amount of people that have come into the country that are taking welfare and other government benefits is way too much. We don t need any more welfare recipients in this country. We need people that are going to bring obs and doctors and things to this country to help our economy. When 91 percent of the Syrian refugees or refugees that comes to this country get welfare, something is wrong. We re committing financial suicide.
APPLAUSE
MACCALLUM: Pablo Manri ue .
PABLO MANRI UE , ORMER DNC O ICIAL: Well, I think the thing to keep in mind here is that Donald Trump did inherit a mess when it comes to immigration. I was one of the people who raised my hand earlier that I am disgusted with how this presidency is going. But I was disgusted with how President Obama s presidency went on this topic, as well. I knocked on thousands of Hispanic doors in particular in 2008, telling people that President Obama was going to offer -Senator Obama at the time was going to offer them some form of relief. He betrayed us. He betrayed us to the tune of 2.8 million deportations. And the reality is that the communities that Cindy is talking about right now do live in fear. And that fear keeps them from working with the police. or e ample, if a wife is being battered and she is worried that by going to the police she is going to be detained for her immigration status, that s ust going to create more battered women. So.
BOOS
MANRI UE : It s true. It s true. I think the point here is that immigrants have already been betrayed by one presidency. And what Donald Trump did today by offering DACA kids hope was a good thing, a very good thing. And I applaud him for it.
MACCALLUM: I mean, the people that they re targeting are either criminals or they have final deportation orders, which means that they were notified sometimes ago. And they have been told for uite some time in many cases. They have left and come back against those orders. So those are the people who are being targeted first by the directive that we ve got today. So we ve got more to come back to after this uick break. So stay with us. But coming up, how do those who have come to America from abroad feel about the moves that have been taken by this administration We re going to talk to two people from this community touched personally by this issue when we come back. Stay with us live in Jacksonville,
lorida.
COMMERCIAL BREA
MACCALLUM: So as we wait, President Trump s revised order calling for more vigorous vetting of immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries. We wanted to talk to a couple of local residents in the Jacksonville area for whom this is a large issue, very near and dear to their hearts. Joanne arhire is an immigration attorney and legal immigrants and now a citi en of the United States. And Ha dary Mohammad is a recent immigrant to Jacksonville from Afghanistan. He spent nine years helping our U.S. troops in his home country. And we thank you for that.
APPLAUSE
MACCALLUM: That is a special category of people that I know you -- I would assume feel in the initial order really got short thrift. Tell me.
HAJDAR MOHAMMAD, RE UGEE ROM A GHANISTAN: What was the.

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

11/16

3/10/2017

CMailsleer: N2e:w1o7rd-ecrvw-i0ll b0e1re3s5po-nJsiLveRto thDe uodcicuiaml ruelinngtR6e8p.-R2on DFeiSlaendtis:0C3on/1gr3es/s1h7as goPtteangoeff to3a1sloowf s1ta6rt0| o News

MACCALLUM: In terms of people who helped our troops, like you did. In the initial e ecutive order, they were very

concerned about their families that they wouldn t be able to get the men, and feel that you have given a great deal to this

country, right

MOHAMMAD: eah. Actually, I worked like nine years with the U.S. army in Afghanistan. So like four years for the U.S. army, and five years with the U.S. Special orces in Afghanistan. So, I mean, because of my work, and my face, and my name, will become known. I am one of those people that they tried to kill. And so, you know, I applied for immigration to come to the United States. I wanted to restart my life, basically from ero to the United States. And I still got some more friends that are there right now working with the special ops in Afghanistan. And they are hoping to come to the United States for a better life.

MACCALLUM: O . Joanne, tell us what you think about this new directive and whether or not you re optimistic about them, and whether or not people like Ha dary and the other colleagues who he works with will be protected.

JOANNE ARHIRE, IMMIGRATION ATTORNE : ou know I am optimistic. I am hoping that President Trump does reali e that there is an issue with immigration, that the immigration system needs to be worked on. But, you know, the way he implemented the e ecutive order before, it did impact victims, you know, the refugees that were coming in, these are people who have already been victimi ed. They re fleeing their countries because they ve been persecuted where they have a well-founded fear of persecution.

I understand and I totally support the need for strong borders and security of United States. ou know, I am a Republican. I supported the Republican president. However, I don t support the weight that this immigration ban was handled. ou have to understand that these are people that are fleeing and they are in fear of their life. So to bring them into this country, they land in an airport, and then they re detained again where they spent.

MACCALLUM: And they re going to try to get that right this time. I want to get a uick thought from Ron Stafford, pastor. ou re listening to all of this. We re talking about compassion and we re talking about security. What do you think

RON STA ORD, PASTOR AND LORIDA RESIDENT: I think the compassion comes with the security. The president, he s working very hard to secure our borders. But yet, those who have green cards and have already been vetted, I think the compassion comes in when you can allow those people to come in. And if they need anything else that needs to be done, then they can finish the investigation. But you must have some compassion for those who put their lives on the line for our country. Those who are here and working, we must begin to work to help them to become citi ens.

MACCALLUM: Thank you, pastor. A uick break, we will be right back live from Jacksonville.

COMMERCIAL BREA

MACCALLUM: That has been a very eye-opening conversation here tonight in Jacksonville, lorida. I want to thank all of our guests and our panelist for taking the time to discuss these hot button issues that are very much in all of our minds right now, dealing with immigration in America. We would love to hear from you at home, too. Go to facebook.com/marthamaccallum, you can leave me a message or send me a tweet marthamaccallum, #first100. Thanks for watching it, everybody. We ll see you tomorrow night. Thank you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

EXH. BB TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://www.fo news.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to- udicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis/

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

12/16

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 32 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 33 of 160

the WHITE HOUSE

Í

From the Press Oyice
Speeches & Remarks Press Brie ings Statements & Releases Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures

The White House Oyice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

March 06, 2017

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Sean Spicer

James S. Brady Press Briefing Roomï

1:47 P.M. EST MR. SPICER: ïGood azernoon, everybody. ïAnother quiet weekend. ï(Laughter.) ï Q ï ïYou sure you don’t want to do this on camera? ï(Laughter.) ï

MR. SPICER: ïThe President signed a new executive order this morning that continues to

protect the nation from terrorists entering into the United States, and a related presidential memorandum. ïAs we've always maintained, the executive order was fully lawful in the first place, and we would have won the related legal cases on the merits. ïBut rather than leave

America’s security in limbo while the litigation dragged on, some estimates having that go

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 34 of 160

up to potentially a year, the President acted to protect the national security by issuing a

new executive order that addresses the court’s concerns, some of which merely involve

clarifying the intent of the original executive order.

Azer reviewing the facts and in thorough consultation with the Cabinet, the President had concluded these actions are necessary to protect the United States from those who, unfortunately, wish to do us harm.

Two areas that I want to highlight in the executive order. ïThere will be a 90-day suspension of travel to the United States by nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, during which time the Department of State and Homeland Security will conduct a review to determine how we can improve the screening process for foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States. ï

These six countries have been previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism. ïSpecifically, Iran, Sudan and Syria have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism. ïLibya is an active combat zone where violent extremist groups thrive in ungoverned territory. ïPortions of Somalia have been a safe haven for terrorist groups. ïMost countries don't even recognize the Somali documents. ï

Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the government and Iran-backed armed opposition. ïBoth ISIS and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and carry out hundreds of attacks. ï

These governments simply cannot or not adequately supply satisfactory information about their own nationals. ïIn the absence of adequate information from these governments, the President has had to act to protect the security of the American people.
Azer the original executive order, Iraq’s government took steps to increase their cooperation with our immigration authorities and improve their vetting process, leading them to be removed from the list of countries covered by the temporary travel suspension. ïWe hope other countries will also take proactive action to ensure the security of all of our nations.
This is proof of both the need for and the eyectiveness of the President’s actions. ïThere are a number of exceptions to this temporary travel suspension. ïThe order explicitly states that the suspension does not apply to, one, green card holders; two, foreign nationals currently in the U.S.; three, foreign nationals currently holding valid visas; four, foreign nationals who are dual citizens of a designated country traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country; and last, foreign nationals who have been granted asylum or admitted as refugees previously.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

Seattle, WA 98104

2/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 35 of 160

There will also be a temporary 120-day suspension of the United States refugees’ admissions program. ïMore than 300 people who have entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the FBI. ïWe must find a way

to better screen refugee applicants to maintain the safety of our own communities.

This suspension will temporarily reduce the investigative burdens on the agencies that participate in our refugee program, allowing them to properly review and revise their standards and practices.

In regard to both of these provisions, the President places his full faith and trust in the experience and knowledge of his Secretary of State and his Secretary of Homeland Security. ïThis order makes it clear that they have broad authority to grant waivers based on their expert judgments. ïThis suspension does not apply to refugees already scheduled for travel by the Department of State, which is explicitly stated in the text of the executive order. ïAdditionally, this suspension does not treat Syrian refugees diyerent than any other refugees. ïIt does not separately address the persecution of religious minorities, but does permit waivers in the cases of undue hardship.
This order was drazed in close consultation with the relevant agencies. ïIt also includes a delay-eyective date of March 16th, giving those involved in its enforcement even more time to facilitate an orderly rollout. ï

We welcome those who come to our country wishing to contribute and share in our nation’s prosperity and wellbeing, but we cannot allow our immigration system to become a vehicle for admitting people who intend to do us harm. ïIt is the President’s solemn duty to protect the American people, and President Trump has taken an important step in securing our borders through this order.

Moving on to today, the President had a full day of meetings with the Cabinet and members of his stay. ïThe President received his intelligence briefing this morning. ïHe had a call
earlier with the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, where they discussed regional security challenges. ïThe Prime Minister thanked the President for his strong stance on antiSemitism during his joint address to Congress last week. ï

The President had lunch with the Vice President, and, as I’m speaking to you now, he is beginning a meeting with the Secretary of State. ïLater today, he’ll have meetings with his National Economic Council and Secretary of Veterans Ayairs Shulkin. ïThis evening, he’ll
have dinner with OMD Director Mulvaney and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, where he will talk about the repeal-and-replace eyorts regarding Obamacare.

With that, I’ll be glad to take a few questions. ï

Q ï ïFollEoXwH.-uCCpToOnMtAhCeLEeOxDe-cBuALtLivDeEoC.rder? ïHave you told3--

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 36 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïJohn Roberts.

Q ï ïThank you. ï(Laughter.) ïYou told us -- I figured since it’s just a gaggle -- you told us many times that the President was going to continue with the case in Seattle federal court, yet paragraph 13 in the new EO says he’s going to revoke the original one. ïWhat changed?

MR. SPICER: ïAs you know, he met with his team over the weekend down in Mar-a-Lago -general counsel, Secretary Sessions, Secretary Kelly, Stephen Miller, other members of the team -- where they discussed -- continued discussing the current executive order, as well as the strategy. ïAnd they made a determination that it was best to pursue this track.

And again, I think, as I mentioned in the opening remarks, we continue to maintain that the order was fully lawful but there were some legal hurdles that we’d have to potentially cross in terms of enjoinment and things like that. ï

So it was discussed with the President Saturday, and he made a decision that this was how he wanted to proceed going forward, based on the advice and counsel of his team.
Q ï ïDOJ has informed the 9th circuit of the existence of the new executive order. ïWill they move to dismiss the 48 cases that are facing that original order? ï
MR. SPICER: ïThat’s a good question. ïI know that there’s the issue of both the 9th circuit and then the other ones. ïAnd I’ll have to get back to you on that. ïI don’t know what posture they’re going to take, so we’ll go forward.

Margaret.

Q ï ïI was just going to say, would you be able to let all of us --

MR. SPICER: ïOh, yeah, I’m sorry. ïYeah, I’d be glad to let everybody know. ï

Q ï ïI’ve got a question too but I can wait until he’s finished, it’s fine.

MR. SPICER: ïJohn, are you done?

Q ï ïOh, I’m done.

MR. SPICER: ïOkay. ïSee how much nicer this is? ïMargaret.

Q ï ïOh, thank you. ïWell, actually I’d like to move away from this subject to the other subject.ï

MR. SPICER: ïSure.

Q ï ïIs the President going to clarify what he meant when he accused President Obama and

White HEoXuH.sCeCoTyOicMiAaClLsEoOfDd-BoAiLnLgDEwCi.retaps? ïIs that what4he meant, oNr OdRidTHhWeESmTeIMaMnIGthRAaNtThReIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

4/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 37 of 160

thinks there were wiretaps that the FBI authorized? ïAnd does he want to kind of, like,

amend his previous statement?

MR. SPICER: ïI think the statement that we issued yesterday where -- President Donald J. Trump is requesting as part of the investigation of Russian activity that congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016. ïNeither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is continued. ï

He wants Congress to look into this. ïI’ve spoken to the President again today. ïHe would ask
that they, additionally, look into this issue of leaks of classified and other information coming from the government. ïHe believes that it undermines our national security and that
Congress -- the intelligence communities in Congress, using their oversight authority, look into these pervasive leaks of national security -- of classified information. ïSo he would do that. ï

I would note, it’s interesting that when you look at what former DNI Clapper said on “Meet the Press,” when he was asked if there was any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election, his quote was, “Not to my knowledge.” ï

I think we’ve continued to see people who have been briefed and are aware of these stories that have existed -- Congressman Chairman Nunes of the Intelligence Committee, Tom Cotton of the -- he’s on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio -- you name it, on and on and on, have said that the information that they’ve been provided -- and this is -- I get it, there’s two separate issues here. ïBut I think on the first one, you saw over and over again the continued comments by people who are in the know or have been in the know on that situation saying that there was no knowledge. ïConversely, you saw former Attorney General Mukasey come out and talk about -- that it’s pretty clear that there was some sort of surveillance or wiretaps that had to have existed.

All that being said, I think that’s why the President is asking Congress, the intelligence committees to use their oversight authority to further understand what’s in this.

I’m sorry. ï

Q ï ïAnd so --

MR. SPICER: ïI’m not sorry but I knew you --

Q ï ïNo, no, no -- yeah. ïJust before we move on -- okay, so for now, the President is not amending what he tweeted.

MR. SPIECXEHR. C:CïNToO.MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

5/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 38 of 160

Q ï ïAnd Jim Comey, in the meantime, I guess wanted Justice to knock it down. ïHas the

President talked to Jim Comey?

MR. SPICER: ïI’ll be honest with you, I have not seen anything aside from another report based on anonymous sources that that actually happened. ïSo aside from anonymous sources saying that a conversation happened, I’m not aware that that occurred. ïI don’t know that we’re aware that that occurred. ïAnd I, frankly, don’t see anything on the record
that show that that actually occurred.

So just to be clear, this is one of the problems that I think occurred in the whole first set of stories. ïPeople start taking things as fact because a series of oy-the-record and anonymous sources say they do. ïWe have started to become a series of believing all of these stories, and yet -- I’ve addressed this in the past -- there’s nothing there to substantiate it. ï
In fact, all of the people, from -- I mean, Clapper’s comment, “Not to my knowledge.” ïYou saw Nunes, Rubio, all these senators and House members that have been briefed by the FBI coming out and saying, we have not seen anything, either. ïAt some point, I would ask people to take on-the-record sources and quotes as important as the countless numbers of anonymous oy-the-records.ï

Zeke. ïOh, I’m sorry --ï

Q ï ïSean --

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, no, I just saw the top of a head. ïHallie, I’m going to get to you, don’t worry. ïI’m sorry, that was my bad. ï

Q ï ïIt’s okay, it’s all right. ïSo explain this to me, then. ïYou’re talking about not using anonymous sources. ïWhat is, then, the sourcing for the President’s tweet on Saturday morning?
MR. SPICER: ïAs I said, I think, look --
Q ï ïAnd does he believe it’s a FISA warrant. ïIs it some other -- of surveillance?
MR. SPICER: ïIt could be FISA. ïIt could be surveillance. ïThere’s no cameras, slow it down.

Q ï ïSo he doesn’t know?

MR. SPICER: ïLook, I think he has made it clear that there are continued reports that have been out there. ïI’m not going to continue to -- I think the President made it clear yesterday that he wants Congress to go in and look at this. ïI think there is substantial reporting out
there from individuals and from sources.

Q ï ïButEwXHh.aCtCsToOuMrcAeCsLE-O- D-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

6/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 39 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïOkay. ïSara, you’re not on camera. ïYou don’t need to jump in. ïWe’ll get to your

question in turn. ïHold on. ï

The answer is, is that the President has made it clear he wants Congress to look into this. ïAnd we’re encouraging the House and Senate intelligence committees to use their oversight capabilities and look into this.

John Gizzi.
Q ï ïSean, does he not know whether -- what kind of surveillance it was?
MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think that there’s no question that something happened. ïThe question is, is it surveillance, is it a wiretap, or whatever. ïBut there’s been enough reporting that strongly suggests that something occurred. ïAnd I think that that’s why what he has said yesterday is that he wants Congress to look into this. ïAnd I think that there is enough out there now that makes one wonder how some of this happened without the existence of surveillance.
Q ï ïBut when he published his tweet --
MR. SPICER: ïRight.
Q ï ï-- did he know what kind of surveillance?
MR. SPICER: ïAll I’m telling -- like I said, I’m going to put a pin in this and say, the statement yesterday made it very clear that he wants House and Senate Intelligence Committee members to use their oversight authority to look into this situation.

John Gizzi.

Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïHas the President ever said there’s hypocrisy and a double standard in the reporting of things? ïFor example, about alleged Russian involvement in U.S. elections, and then on the other hand, relatively little attention paid to the leaking of conversations with world leaders that are classified? ïAnd does the leaking of his conversations with world leaders bother him and make him want to investigate that as well?

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I mean, I think he is very concerned about that. ïThere is obviously information that ayects national security that has been leaked out that concerns him. ïI

mean, it’s -- and I think when you’ve seen some of the leader calls being leaked out that are

sort of congratulatory or not necessarily dealing with state secrets or national security,

that’s one thing to seem -- but it gives you pause and concern to realize that, if you’re talking about something of national security, of something that ayects two of our diyerent

economies or countries, that -- whether it’s China or North Korea, whether you’re actually

talking

EtXoHt.hCeCmTOoMrAtCaLlEkOinDg-BAaLbLoDuEtC.them

with

another

le7ader,

that

there is obviously concern NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

7/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 40 of 160

that those calls are getting leaked out. ïAnd I think that’s why the President is also now

asking Congress to additionally use its oversight authorities to also look at those leaks and wonder why that’s happening. ï

So I think he is concerned. ïI think we’ve said it several times before, and it’s obviously something that is of major concern. ïAnd, frankly, when you recognize the potential that that could have on the safety of our country, it should give everyone pause.

Hallie.
Q ï ïSean, two topics for you here. ïI want to clarify some questions again from my colleagues. ïHas the President spoken with the FBI director about the allegations he made Saturday morning, and does he have confidence in his FBI?
MR. SPICER: ïTo the best of my knowledge, I’m almost 100 percent certain that he has not, but I’ve not specifically asked him. ïI’m not aware that that occurred. ïObviously I’ll give myself -- and I’d be glad to get back, but I have not known that that existed. ïSo I’m giving myself the ability to get back to you on this, but I’m not --
Q ï ïAnd all of us.
MR. SPICER: ïAnd all of you. ïWe’re making a list. ïBut I am not aware that that actually happened.
Q ï ïAnd the confidence question. ïDoes he have confidence in his director?
MR. SPICER: ïThere’s nothing that I have been told by him that would lead me to believe that anything is diyerent than when it was prior.
Q ï ïAnd before I get to the second topic, a clarification here. ïYou’re talking about the President wanting to go to Congress, specifically on the wiretapping question, but this is information that is held by the executive branch. ïSo why would the President, if it’s information the executive branch has --
MR. SPICER: ïBecause I think that there’s -- like, again, and I’m not going to -- I want to stay in my wheelhouse here. ïBut my understanding is, is that the President directing the Department of Justice to do something with respect to an investigation that may or may not occur with evidence may be seen as trying to interfere. ïAnd I think that we’re trying to do this in the proper way, and that’s --
Q ï ïSo his tweets about it -- sort of saying that this information exists does not --
MR. SPICER: ïThat doesn’t interfere with an investigation.ï

So, ZekEeX.H. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

8/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 41 of 160

Q ï ïOkay, the second topic was actually on the immigration executive order. ïThe President

back in January tweeted about a one-week delay on the travel ban, would have let “bad dudes” enter the country. ïThis particular revised order doesn’t go into eyect for another 10

days.

MR. SPICER: ïThe 16th.

Q ï ïSo what changed? ïHow does that under -- does that undercut your argument that the nation was at risk?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I would argue that the court kind of undercut our argument by not reading the U.S. code the way it’s intended to. ïBut I think we lost the element of surprise way back when we said we were going to issue a second executive order.

Q ï ïSo that’s what it was about, the element of surprise?

MR. SPICER: ïOh, absolutely. ïI think we said at the beginning. ïThe whole reason that we did it in the way that we did was because if you -- started to telegraph it. ïBut I think that when we started talking about a second executive order a couple of weeks back, I think that that generally took away -- whether it was done on Friday or Sunday or Monday, it wouldn’t have mattered. ïAnd people have been able to -- we have telegraphed what we’re doing for the last couple weeks. ïWe took that away, and the President, as you’ve seen, has been very methodical about making sure we’ve talked about this for the last week --

Q ï ïSince the -- ï

MR. SPICER: ïRight, but talking about implementing it correctly. ïAnd I think Saturday night, if you saw the group of individuals who were down in Florida sitting with him, this is part of that implementation process that we’ve been talking about, that we were continuing to tweak it, to get it ready to speed, overcome a lot of issues and concerns that had to get added in or out, and make sure that the government was properly -- but make no mistake, we lost the element of surprise back when we said -- when the court enjoined this in the 9th circuit, and then we had to go back to the drawing board and we talked about doing a second order. ïThat was the intent of it the entire time. ïYou lose that back then.

Zeke.
Q ï ïGoing back to the previous topic, the President calling for Congress to investigate these specific issues. ïDoes that mean that the President is willing -- or is committing now to accepting the conclusions of these congressional investigations no matter what they say on anything? ïSo because he’s now calling for this investigation, he is now committing to accept the outcome?

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

Seattle, WA 98104

9/42

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 42 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I don’t think you would ever just blanketly say “I’m going to accept any outcome.” ïThat doesn’t matter what it is. ïYou can go to court and -- it doesn’t mean that

you get found guilty or innocent that you’re accepting the outcome, it means that you’re agreeing that that’s a legitimate -- but I think we’re going to let Congress work its will. ïI

think if we have a problem with one of the conclusions, we’ll let it be known.

But I think that, for right now, the issue is, is that we think that that’s the appropriate place for this to be looked into. ïAnd they have the resources, and they, themselves, have admitted that.

Alexis.
Q ï ïSean, can I ask two topics?
MR. SPICER: ïSure.
Q ï ïOn this topic, let me just follow up. ïIf members of Congress pursue an investigation that looks into surveillance in the way the President would like them to, and he believes that that surveillance is potentially against the law, they would make recommendations to the executive branch to pursue and prosecute anyone responsible for that. ïSo their recommendations would come back to the Justice Department. ïSo to ask the question again, would the President accept the recommendations of the legislative branch that potentially laws were broken and that those accusations should come back to the Justice Department to investigate?
MR. SPICER: ïI think it’s hard to prejudge what they’re doing. ïObviously, the reason that he’s asking the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to go through this is because he thinks that they are the appropriate venues. ïThey have the appropriate stay to look at them, and I think it’s an appropriate way of having that separation of powers, if you will, where it’s not asking -- directing the Department of Justice to do something that they may or may not be the ones conducting.

But again, the reason I don’t want to give a blanket statement, Alexis, isn’t because I’m trying to prejudge it. ïBut I think that depending on a lot of things, you don’t want to say, we’re going to accept every single thing they do. ïI think we definitely will have a lot of respect for what they do and what they look into, but I think to blanketly accept -- just say, we’re going to accept anything they say or do, might be a bit premature and not exactly the way to go.

Q ï ïAnd I had a healthcare question but before I do that, it was reported that the President was interested in having the White House Counsel pursue information that would help support the President’s argument that he may have been under surveillance. ïIs it the case

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

10

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

10/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 43 of 160

that the President has indeed asked Don McGhan to continue doing that? ïOr is he dropping

that and --

MR. SPICER: ïNo, Don McGhan was never asked -- all Don Mcghan was ever asked to do was to review what options, if any, were available. ïThat’s it. ïJust review internally and tell the President, this is what’s -- but we made very clear to anyone who asked -- and if you know Don and the team here -- these are unbelievably talented lawyers. ïThey’re very skilled in understanding their -- where the bounds are, and would understand that any type of interference would be -- it was an internal review of what options, if any, were available. ïSo it’s full stop.

Q ï ïAnd that was completed?

MR. SPICER: ïThat guidance was made available to the President. ï

Q ï ïOkay. ïHere’s my healthcare question.

MR. SPICER: ïIt was also reported that the President’s desire for speed with the administration’s own Ayordable Care Act replacement plan has kicked the ball to the OMB Director rather the HHS Secretary to complete that work and get it out this week. ïWho is in charge of actually completing that? ïIs it more now in the ball court of OMB rather than HHS? ïOr are they working together? ïHow would you describe it, and is it still coming out this
week?

MR. SPICER: ïI believe it is coming out -- I have every intention that it comes out this week. ïBut I think it’s a joint eyort. ïI think Secretary Price is obviously the lead; it’s HHS. ïBut Director Mulvaney, his time -- I mean, they’ve both served in the House and were champions of budget issues. ïObviously, there’s a huge budgetary impact on that, and his understanding of the budget, his role here, and, obviously, his understanding of Congress makes Director Mulvaney a great partner.

So it’s not a question of -- and this is the same issue that came up during the transition on trade. ïI think we have an unbelievably talented team -- everybody from Robert Lighthizer, when he gets confirmed as the U.S. Trade Rep, you’ve got Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Peter Navarro here -- it’s not an either/or thing. ïIt’s I think bringing the best and the brightest together to get something through.

Obamacare and repealing and replacing it with something that’s more accessible, ayordable, more innovative is not something that just has to land in one person’s hand. ïIt can be covered -- and I think there are great partners and great teammates.

Yes.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

11/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 44 of 160

Q ï ïYes, please, thank you, Sean. ïI’m just wondering when you said that it’s pretty clear that

there was some sort of intelligence or wiretaps and that that’s why we need to move

forward with an investigation, is that based on people speaking on the record, or

anonymous sources?

MR. SPICER: ïOn the record. ïI think General Mukasey was very much on the record when he came to that conclusion. ïI think that when you -- anyway. ïI will leave it to Congress to further follow up on that.

Q ï ïAnd one more, if I may. ïThe President has yet to announce the vast majority of his subCabinet-level nominations, such as Ambassador to Japan. ïDoes the White House have a long-term timeline for all the rest of these nominations?

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think that you should -- there’s a bunch of sub-Cabinet individuals and ambassadorships that should be coming out very soon. ïOne of the things that I think -- I’m glad you kind of gave me an opportunity to touch on personnel. ïThere was a report the
other day that of, like, the 1,927 positions that -- someone went through, I think one of the things that people have to recognize is -- we talked about this a lot during the transition. ïWe
had about 600 members of these beachhead teams that went in under a special hiring process -- that they’re able to be there for 120 days. ïFor the most part, most of those people transition into Schedule C positions. ïIt’s not a given. ïIt is not a default, meaning -- and I
think we made it clear during the transition -- it’s not just if you showed up for the first 120 days you get to stay. ïBut sort of -- they were chosen specifically because of their
understanding of the issue, their expertise or their desire to serve in that particular capacity.

And so we actually -- when you actually look at the numbers, we are well ahead, if not on par with -- we’re well ahead of almost every modern administration. ïI think we’re right on par with Obama ’08. ïBut you think about it, of the 1,927 or so positions, we’ve got over 600
of those individuals, and -- most of whom so far are looking like they’re fully going to convert to Schedule C. ïBut they are performing the duties that would be done by a Schedule C.ï

So when you look at the totality of what we’re doing, we were well ahead on the Cabinet. ïAnd again, one of the other things is, you’ve got Congress still holding up the Cabinet getting appointed. ïAnd so I think there’s a degree to which Senate Democrats, before we get a lot of stones thrown at us about where we are on the rest, they haven’t even finished the job at hand of getting the full Cabinet.

Jon Decker.

Q ï ïThanks a lot, Sean. ïTwo questions on the executive order. ïWith the first executive order, there was a lot of fanfare when the President signed that executive order; in the Oval Oyice

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

12

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

12/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 45 of 160

today, not so much. ïWe didn’t see the President, no cameras, no pool. ïWhy didn’t he want

to show us him signing this new executive order?

MR. SPICER: ïI tweeted a picture out. ï

Q ï ïThat’s your picture, that’s not independent --

Q ï ïWell, I know -- from today. ïYeah, that’s your --

MR. SPICER: ïI know, I’m -- I think -- (laughter) -- there are three agencies that are dealing with -- to your point, we went through this. ïWe talked about the courts issue, we talked about this ad nauseam; the President got asked about it over and over again. ïI think today
was about the implementation of it, was about having the three Departments that are expressly named to implement this to talk about what they’re doing to implement it. ïAnd I
think they did a phenomenal job about it.

And that’s what we wanted to highlight today, is the government getting it done. ïAnd the way that the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State were implementing the measures that the President laid forth -- again, if you think about it, the principles of the executive order remain the same. ïWe looked at what the court said, we put together a thing -- we consulted with the relevant agencies and Departments. ïWe talked to Congress. ïWe had an extensive morning of briefings. ïThe call to the press lasted about an hour, I guess.

And so we made sure that everybody knew what we were doing. ïWe sent them out to make sure that the American people could see what they were doing. ï

And so I just want to be clear that I think we did a phenomenal job of rolling it out and making sure the American people saw the faces of the Departments that were instrumental in implementing it. ï

I’m sorry, Jon, go ahead.
Q ï ïThat’s all right. ïThe second one has to do with this idea of “element of surprise.” ïWith the first executive order and also with this one, there’s a 90-day temporary ban on residents entering this country from six predominantly Muslim countries. ïWhat’s to stop a so-called “bad dude” from one of these countries from coming into the country on the 91st day, or the 92nd day? ïWhy 90 days? ïDoesn’t that get rid of that element of surprise when you say --
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I think that -- no, but -- thank you, that’s actually an interesting question. ïI think part of it is, is that we feel confident that during that 90-day period, the processes could be put in place.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

13

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

13/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 46 of 160

Now, remember, there’s two key things that are important. ïNumber one is these six

countries are the ones that we don’t have the information currently that we feel comfortable -- and as I lized oy why -- I mean, there are some that literally are statesponsors of terror. ïAnd I think when you recognize -- I don’t think there’s any American that

wants a country that is a state-sponsor of terror to be sending their individuals here without

us properly vetting them.

You talk about Yemen, the documents that people use in Yemen are not accepted by a whole host of countries because they lack the integrity to ensure that they are not compromised. ïAnd I think that there is a big diyerence in that, but we can -- at the end of that 90-day period, we can let a country oy, we can expand the list of countries, we could indefinitely address the countries that are on the list, we could expand that list to other countries that aren’t on it.
But there’s two things that are happening. ïOne is, we’re putting a ban on those countries, the six that are named. ïBut two is, we’re looking at an entire -- at the rest of the entire world, and all of the procedures that we use to address all countries.ï
And so at the end of that period, we could add countries. ïWe could subtract countries. ïWe could decide to indefinitely continue with one of the two -- one of the six, rather. ïBut if you look at the case of Iraq, azer the first order, they stepped up with four very specific things that they did to ensure that people traveling from Iraq, we had certain things -- whether it be biometrics and others -- that let us ensure that people coming into the country, we felt confident in knowing that they were coming in.
But that’s an important thing. ïIt’s not just those six. ïWe’re looking at that time -- we’re dealing with those during that 90-day -- but we’re also looking at everybody else at the same period.

Kaitlan.
Q ï ïSo why doesn’t the order prevent people who didn’t have visas by the day of the first order from coming in the country? ïBecause wouldn’t that safeguard from the people who went and got visas during this revision period? ï
MR. SPICER: ïI would just say I think that there’s appropriate steps that have been taken during that period to ensure that the homeland has been protected.

Go ahead, I know you have another one.

Q ï ïJust one more question.

MR. SPICER: ïOf course.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

14

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

14/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 47 of 160

Q ï ïDoes the President think that Barack Obama himself wiretapped him, or someone in the

administration?

MR. SPICER: ïI’m just going to say that as the President noted in his statement, we’re going to let Congress look into that and then we’ll get back to you -- we’ll discuss it azer Congress comes with -- Erin.

Q ï ïSince the President contends that he and President Obama like each other, has he picked up the phone and called President Obama since the inauguration, or did he think about asking him directly before accusing him publicly?

MR. SPICER: ïI have not -- I’m not aware of whether or not they’ve talked. ïI can ask and find out and get back to you.

Cecilia.
Q ï ïDoes the fact that you’re rescinding this first executive order -- is it at all an admission that things just didn’t go right the first time around?
MR. SPICER: ïNo. ïI think the first executive order, we’ve made clear time and time again -when you look at how the court adjudicated that, their facts were wrong. ïJust in terms of how many people had come into the country, they based it oy of several things that I think were not factually accurate. ïI think we recognized that we could have been in litigation for up to a year on this, and that would have lez the country exposed. ï

And I think that that’s -- there is a goal here that we sought to achieve the first time that we have to maintain. ïBut by no means -- we 100 percent maintain that the executive order as initially drazed is completely constitutional and legal, and that what we’ve done is to do the
best of our ability based on what the court --

Q ï ïSean --

MR. SPICER: ïHold on, it’s still Cecilia’s turn.

Q ï ïThank you. ïWhat about this issue of radicalization azer people are here, which is what DHS raised in that report? ïOne of the examples that’s cited in the EO today is the Somali man, now, who came as a child and was radicalized here. ïSo what does this order do about
that population of people?

MR. SPICER: ïThe people that are here --

Q ï ïThat are here, which is what -- the concern that DHS raised in this report, that said people -- the bigger concern is people who are here and are radicalized azer the fact, not

those that are here just stopping to --

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

15

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

15/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 48 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïI think that what we need to do -- this isn’t a one-stop shop. ïI think that we have to look at this -- the entire problem. ïThis is one piece of the problem that we’re looking at to make sure that we keep the country safe. ïIt’s not a either/or, or only-this-then. ïBut I think you’re going to see a continuation of steps that the President takes to make sure

that the country is protected.

One small correction that I’ve been made aware of, it’s Somalia, not Yemen, that the travel docs are not accepted. ïSo my apologies to Yemen. ï
Jey, did you -- hold on. ïThanks. ïJey.
Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïYou’ve mentioned a couple times and referred a couple times today to DNI Clapper -- former DNI Clapper’s comments on -- over the weekend about Russia and the Trump campaign. ïAre you encouraging people to take those comments seriously but not the comments where he said there was no wiretapping?
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I’m just -- well, first of all, he also said that he wasn’t aware -- he couldn’t speak entirely when it came to wiretapping. ïHe said that he wasn’t aware of anything. ïI take him at his word that he wasn’t aware, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist.

But I also think that it’s interesting that the double standard that has existed for so long when it comes to -- you have these sources over and over again who have been briefed by the FBI that say, I was briefed, there’s nothing there. ïYou have Clapper saying, “Not that I’m aware of.” ïAnd yet, we still have these stories over and over again citing anonymous sources.

At some point, you have to question how many times are you going to take “didn’t see anything there” before we start seeing these stories getting rewritten over and over and over again? ïI think that is a valid question. ïIt’s interesting how everyone today is asking what sources we have, and yet we’ve been asking the same question about the sources for these anonymous sources and story azer story for the last six months. ïAnd it’s just, don’t worry, we have these trusted anonymous sources that may or may not be true. ïAnd at the bottom of every story it has some kind of caveat that -- however there has been no formal evidence presented.

I think there’s been a malignment for so many months about what may or may not have happened, and yet not a shred of single truth has actually come that shows any evidence that existed except for anonymous source azer anonymous source azer anonymous source.
Q ï ïOn a diyerent issue? ï
MR. SPICER: ïYeah.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

16

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

16/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 49 of 160

Q ï ïWhat is the White House’s reaction to North Korea firing four ballistic missiles into the

sea oy of Japan’s northwest?

MR. SPICER: ïThe launches are consistent with North Korea’s long history of provocative behavior. ïThe United States stands with our allies in the face of this very serious threat. ïThe Trump administration is taking steps to enhance our ability to defend against North Korea’s ballistic missiles, such as through the deployment of a THAAD battery to South Africa -South Korea.

Q ï ïI just want to circle back around to a couple things that you said. ïYou said it could be FISA, it could be surveillance. ïSo are you saying that the administration is conceding that somewhere there was evidence presented before a judge that shows there could be collusion with the campaign and that it was okay to surveil them?

MR. SPICER: ïNo, what I'm suggesting is that, as I said, that our goal is to allow Congress to do its job, as the statement said yesterday.

Olivier.
Q ï ïAnd then the follow-up on the new order. ïYou had said that there are a hundred or so that had been inspected, but how many total that came in that you all have detained.ï
MR. SPICER: ïIt’s 300.
Q ï ïOf 300 -- 100 refugees? ïYou said hundreds of -- or 300 refugees. ïHow many total came in, and how many did you detain?
MR. SPICER: ïI'd ask you to talk to the Department of Justice -- actually, Homeland Security on that one. ïI know the top-line stat on that one.

Olivier.
Q ï ïA couple for you. ïOne, just scheduling. ïThe Israeli defense minister is in town tomorrow. ïWill he meet with the President?
MR. SPICER: ïI'll have to get back to you on that. ïI'm not aware that that's on the schedule at this time, but -- I don't know. ïI know that he and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke earlier. ïI'm not aware that that came up.
Q ï ïAnd can you flesh out this notion of 300 refugees being investigated? ïWhat are they being investigated for, specifically? ïWhat’s the source for this information --
MR. SPICER: ïThe FBI.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

17

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

17/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 50 of 160

Q ï ïSo the FBI is investigating 300 refugees currently on U.S. soil on terrorism-related

charges?

MR. SPICER: ïThat's what I have been -- yes. ïI'll get you the stat for that, but that's --

Q ï ïThat would be great. ïThank you.

MR. SPICER: ïAnita.

Q ï ïCan you talk a little bit about Iraq and how they’re not -- why they’re not in the executive order anymore? ïSo is this a signal to the other six and to other countries that they can also
get removed if they -- I think you called it “proactive,” if they were proactively having their own actions? ï

MR. SPICER: ïI think what I would say, and I think the way you phrased it is right. ïIt’s not just the six countries, it's countries throughout the globe. ïI think that we are -- it is in every country’s best interest to know who’s coming in and out of its country and to do things. ïAnd I think there are things that we've asked countries to do. ïAnd it's not inclusive, it's not “have you hit these four.” ïI think each country is a separate case. ïSo I don't want to say, “if you do these four you're in.” ï

Q ï ïBut is it possible, then, to --

MR. SPICER: ïAbsolutely. ïI think there is -- now, in some cases, like anything else, Anita, it may be easier for one country to achieve something than for another. ïBut at the end of the day, I think there are certain things that -- there are certain steps that Iraq went through, including things like biometrics and turning over lists of -- updating lists, rather, of people within their country that have -- that pose a threat. ï

And so that -- they’ve agreed to do certain things azer the first one was ordered that give us a much greater degree of confidence in knowing who is coming in and out of the country.

Q ï ïAnd then on another topic. ïWhat was the President’s reaction to hearing about Vice President Pence’s email use, personal email for government business? ïI ask, obviously, because he had so many things to say about Hillary Clinton using personal email for government business last year?

MR. SPICER: ïI was going to insert, like, an AOL joke here. ï(Laughter.) ï

But I think, look, I don’t -- I think there’s a big diyerence. ïThe Vice President complied with Indiana law, turned over all of his emails and made sure that everything was done. ïI mean, that’s a very big step. ïThere’s no question that I’ve been made aware of that he didn’t do everything in compliance with Indiana law. ïThere’s a big diyerence between doing what is

commoEnXHp.rCaCctTiOceMAwCiLtEhOinD-BaAsLtLaDtEeCg. overnment

and

wh1a8t

is

in

compliance with that state’s NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

18/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 51 of 160

laws, then setting up a private server that seeks specifically to go around the government

protocols and the Federal Records Act.

There’s a big diyerence between that. ïBut I mean, the governor at the time, and now the Vice President, did everything in compliance with Indiana law. ïAnd I think that’s a big diyerence, is that it’s not a question of -- it’s a question of was there a law and was there a rule and did you follow it. ïIn the case of Governor Pence, he did. ïIn the case of Secretary Clinton, I would let the record speak for itself on that.
Sara. ïGabby, I’m sorry.
Q ï ïThanks, Sean. ïPart of the justification for the hurried rollout of the initial executive order on immigration was that if it wasn’t rolled out immediately, that people would take advantage of that and come into the country. ïSo why has the administration decided to delay the implementation of this new executive order until March 16th?
MR. SPICER: ïI’m going to refer you Hallie Jackson. ï(Laughter.) ïThat was what Hallie asked earlier.

Q ï ïSorry.

MR. SPICER: ïNo problem, it’s in the -- but basically the answer that I gave Hallie that I’ll give to you is, I think the first order -- one of the goals of the first order was an element of surprise, to implement it in a way that didn’t allow people to get in, right?

Since the 9th Circuit acted, we’ve been talking about a second executive order. ïI think we lost the element of surprise back in mid- to early February when the 9th Circuit acted the way they did. ïSo that element -- what we’ve tried to do now is to make sure, with that element gone, that we’ve implemented this in a way that ensures the greatest degree of confidence that we know what we’re doing.

One quick item -- I’m not done, so don’t -- you can keep your hands -- someone asked earlier, and I’m trying to remember who, about the source for DOJ. ïWas that you, Olivier? ïThe Department of Justice, FBI investigation, section one, subsection H, the text of the EO
notes -- you can check on that for the source.

I’m sorry. ïMatt.

Q ï ïThanks. ïSean, doubling back to something we talked about earlier. ïPresident Trump accused President Obama of criminal conduct. ïOne, can you tell us what his source was for that accusation? ïTwo, can you tell us, unequivocally, that he was basing that on more than a talk radio report and a Breitbart article about that talk radio report?ï

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

19

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

19/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 52 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïI’m going to tell that -- I’ve said it over and over again, I think the President

made it very clear in the statement yesterday that he is not going to comment any further

on this until Congress does --

Q ï ïSo maybe it was just based on the talk radio report?

MR. SPICER: ïI’m not going to -- I’m just going to say that the President made it very clear that, based on numerous things, including -- and I think there’s a New York Times story on it, there’s several sources that made this clear or brought this to light -- but I’m not going to go into anything further, as the President noted, until this is resolved.

Mara.
Q ï ïI have two topics. ïOne, on the EO that maybe is coming later this week -- an EO on the Obama administration’s fuel-economy standards. ïAre you going to have an EO reversing those, and will that also negate California’s waiver?
MR. SPICER: ïI don’t see anything on -- I’ll have to get back to you, as my standard. ïI’m not so sure on the timing -- I was just looking at my date. ï

Q ï ïOh, okay. ïThank you. ï

MR. SPICER: ïBut I’d just -- I wouldn’t get -- I don’t have anything to announce at the time, is generally how I answer that, and I’m going to stick to it.

Q ï ïOkay, but I have just one more question on the other topic. ïYou said that you pointed rightly to Clapper’s comments -- nothing that he knows of suggests there was any collusion between the campaign and Russia. ïBut he also said that he didn’t know of any wiretap FISA order. ïWhy are you willing to accept his --
MR. SPICER: ïThat’s what Jey asked.
Q ï ïWell, I guess the thing I’m asking is that the President of the United States has unilateral authority to declassify anything that he wants. ïHe said in his tweet, I just learned of this. ïSo he obviously had some kind of evidence. ïWhy not declassify it?
MR. SPICER: ïI think that’s -- as I have made clear, there’s a reason that we want Congress, the intelligence committees to do their job in terms of making sure that there’s a separation of powers. ï

Q ï ïHe’s afraid it would look like interference?

MR. SPICER: ïI think that, again, I’m just going to leave it at that he thinks it’s appropriate for

Congress to do this instead of trying to point to his own Department of Justice.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

20

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

20/42

3/13/2017
Ashley.

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 53 of 160

Q ï ïSean --

MR. SPICER: ïHold on, you’re going to wait your turn. ïIt’s Ashley’s turn.

Q ï ïThank you. ïThis morning, Kellyanne Conway went on Fox News and she said, “He’s the President of the United States. ïHe has information and intelligence that the rest of us do not.” ïSo that seemed to be referring not to these news reports you’re talking about, but to specific, tangible evidence. ïSo what can you tell us about what that evidence is, where it came from? ïAnd then secondly, if he has this evidence, why is he asking Congress to
investigate?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I just -- I think the point that Kellyanne was making at the time is that the President, because he’s President, gets access to NSC and other intelligence documents. ïI don’t know -- I haven’t seen the exact transcript, so I can’t --

Q ï ïI can read it to you.

MR. SPICER: ïI appreciate that, thank you. ïBut I also haven’t talked to Kellyanne about it, so I don’t think you can do that part. ïBut I don’t -- so I can’t specifically respond to you in terms of what she was referring to, whether she was referring to the exact nature of his charge or whether, generally speaking, he is given information.

But again, on all of this, I’m going to go back to the statement earlier that the President’s goal right now is to make sure that House and Senate can do this -- yes.

Q ï ïThank you, Sean. ïChina is retaliating against the THAAD deployment in South Korea. ïWhat is the U.S. position?

MR. SPICER: ïIt’s retaliating against what? Q ï ïAgainst the THAAD deployment in South Korea, THAAD battery deployment.

MR. SPICER: ïThe THAAD battery?

Q ï ïYes.

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think we’re going to work with South Korea. ïI mean, obviously, North Korea’s missile launches present a danger to our friends down south. ïAnd I think, as I mentioned in our response, we’re going to continue to work with the government of South Korea to address this thing.

Q ï ïWould the U.S. -- the Chinese government?

MR. SPIECXEHR. C:CïI’TmO MnAoCtLaEOt Dth-BiAsLpL oDEinCt. -- huh?

21

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

21/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 54 of 160

Q ï ï-- the Chinese government?

MR. SPICER: ïWe have not had any further conversations on this. ïI think this is consistent with U.S. policy. ï

Margaret.
Q ï ïSean, two points of clarification. ïDid the President mean in any way to suggest that the FBI broke the law, or any other intelligence agencies, with this allegation of wiretapping?
MR. SPICER: ïIn the tweet? ï
Q ï ïYes. ï
MR. SPICER: ïI’m just going to let the tweet speak for itself. ïI’m not going to get into --
Q ï ïWell, that’s why I’m asking this question?
MR. SPICER: ïI get it, but I think that I’m not going to try to --
Q ï ïBecause it opens that up.
MR. SPICER: ïI understand that, and I think I will seek further clarification on that. ïFor right now, I would just suggest to you that I’m going to let it speak until I can get further clarification.
Q ï ïMy second point of clarification here. ïYou said, you know, you didn’t want to really get into what the triggering event was for the tweet in the first place, but I want you to address this part if you would. ïThe question has been raised -- or the allegation has been raised that the President was simply trying to change the topic oy of an unfortunate news cycle that week. ïCan you address that portion of the question, that this was deliberately about changing the media narrative and not anything having to do with the story itself?
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I don’t -- I mean, that’s -- I have nothing to lead me to believe that that was the case. ïI’m not sure -- and I think he had a great week last week. ïHe had a phenomenal joint address. ïWe had a great visit down in Norfolk, talked about rebuilding the military. ïHe was in Orlando, in Florida, talking about how school choice can help children and parents and create better schools. ï

So I just -- I can’t say that I’ve talked to him specifically about this, but I think the President had a good week. ïAnd so I don’t see any reason that he would be using -- I mean, that just -I think it was an issue of concern to him.

Q ï ïSean, let’s remind everybody what the President did tweet Saturday morning: ï“Terrible!

ïJust

foEuXnHd. CoCuTtOthMaACtLOEObDa-mBAaLLhDaEdC.my

‘wires

tapped’

in22Trump

Tower just before the victory.” NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

22/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 55 of 160

ïHe later called Obama a stupid guy -- or whatever it was exactly -- a sick guy. ïYeah, sorry. ïAre the American people supposed to pull back and suddenly think that this is not the

President of the United States accusing his predecessor of committing a crime when he

writes it that way?

MR. SPICER: ïLook, I think the President speaks very candidly. ïHis tweets speak for themselves, as we’ve said before, and he’s asked the House and Senate committees to look into this.

Sara.
Q ï ïConsidering the scrutiny surrounding President Trump’s then-campaign advisors and Russia, which has carried over at the White House, is he reconsidering at all his hope or his timeline for pairing with Russia to fight ISIS?
MR. SPICER: ïIs he -- based on --
Q ï ïJust based on the amount of scrutiny surrounding his --
MR. SPICER: ïNo, I mean, I think if Russia wants to join with us to fight ISIS, that’s a great --
Q ï ïSo nothing has changed on that front?
MR. SPICER: ïNo.
Q ï ïAnd secondly, in light of the fact that there were previously undisclosed communications between the Russian ambassador and Michael Flynn and Jey Sessions and Jared Kushner, has White House counsel done anything proactively to try to go to senior stayers or other Cabinet-level oyicials and say, hey, if you have had contact with a Russian oyicial that you have not previously disclosed, then now is the time to do it?
MR. SPICER: ïNot that I’m aware of. ïI’m not aware of any of that. ïI would say that there’s -one of the things that is interesting that, you know -- in the course of people conducting their business here at the White House or during a transition or in the House or the Senate, you contact a whole host of people -- diplomats, government oyicials, you know, association representatives, corporate representatives. ïI mean, that’s -- those are the kind of folks that talk to people in government. ï

And I think that there’s one thing between talking with somebody -- I mean, I think -- and again, I’ll get back to you so don’t be prescriptive on this. ïI think someone had told me
earlier today that there were something like 20 visits to the Russian ambassador in the last, you know, 10, maybe, years. ïI don’t -- huh? ï

Q ï ïTwenty-two.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

23

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

23/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 56 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïTwenty-two. ïThank you for helping fact check me. ï(Laughter.)ï

Q ï ï-- is not here, so somebody’s got to do it. ï(Laughter.)ï

MR. SPICER: ïThank you. ïWhere’s Knoller? ïBut I think at some point, there’s nothing wrong with people doing their job, right? ïI mean, that’s what I think that there is a big diyerence between so-and-so met with someone. ïThere’s nothing to disclose with a meeting. ïIf I have
a meeting with a member of the media, no one says, hey, did you know that you need to report every time you meet with this individual or this outlet or whatever. ïThere’s nowhere to report that kind of stuy. ïThere’s a big diyerence between doing something nefarious or
illegal and conducting yourself in a routine course of business.

Q ï ïBut there were clearly a number of instances where people in this administration suggested they did not have any contact or misled you guys about the amount of contact they had, which has then caused some unflattering news cycles.

MR. SPICER: ïWell, and I think -- so in one case, Michael Flynn was, you know -- the President said the inconsistencies and him not being straight with the Vice President -- he asked him to resign. ïI think the President dealt with it.

But that was -- again, if you note the President’s comments at the time, he was very clear that the issue wasn’t that he’s doing his job. ïThe issue was him misleading the Vice President. ïAnd that's a very diyerent thing.

So he had no problem with him doing his job and contacting individuals that we were going to need to be in contact with during the administration. ïAnd that's where I think there is a big diyerence between a lot of these stories saying, did you know that so and so did this? ïThere’s nothing wrong with people meeting with ambassadors, or government oyicials, or corporate representatives, or members of the media. ïThat's part of what we do in government. ï

And so I think there’s a big diyerence in the question that you're asking about whether or not someone is doing something that's wrong and inappropriate or illegal, and someone doing what they would do in a normal course of business.

Q ï ïWell, I think the other question is just whether there have been more instances in this that are going to catch you guys by surprise since he --

MR. SPICER: ïAnd I guess --

Q ï ï-- the President himself has denied that there was any kind of this contact throughout the campaign, and then we found out there were national security --

MR. SPIECXEHR. C:CïBTuOtMhAoClLdEOoDn-B. AïALLctDuEaCl.ly --ï

24

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

24/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 57 of 160

Q ï ï-- advisors you didn't mention meeting with the Russian ambassador as well as Jey

Sessions, and then there was this meeting with Michael Flynn, as well as Jared Kushner,

which was not previously disclosed.

MR. SPICER: ïOkay, so there’s two things. ïYou said the President found out about this. ïWhat’s “this?” ïHaving a meeting? ïAgain, I don't think that -- there’s countless meetings that members of his senior stay and the rest of people throughout government have on it every day. ïThat's why he’s asked us to come here and work, is to facilitate some of these meetings and get some of this stuy done.
There is no one to disclose stuy to. ïI don't disclose the --ï
Q ï ïThat sounds like you're saying you're not concerned that they're --ï
MR. SPICER: ïNo, it’s not that I’m not concerned. ïI guess there’s -- but what I’m getting at, Sara, is that there’s a diyerence between being concerned about somebody -- I could equally be concerned that if a member of the media said, hey, I want to take a member of your stay out, and we're going to break some kind of ethics rule. ïI would be concerned about that. ïBut I wouldn’t be concerned if they said, hey, we want to go have coyee with a member of the media. ï

They don't disclose all that on our stay. ïAnd I think -- but that's essential to your question is, is a meeting -- there’s nothing wrong with a meeting. ïThere’s nothing wrong with meeting with a government oyicial, or a diplomat, or a member of the media, or a corporate individual, or association, or a constituent, or a citizen that has an issue. ïBut on any of
those categories, once they cross the line and do something wrong, and I think to the
answer of your question, the issue was specifically -- or the question surrounded attempts to influence the election. ïThose are very diyerent than people meeting also during a transition period, or people meeting in their White House capacity. ïBut those are three
separate instances.

All of the stories that I’ve heard so far, previously all detailed just action with respect to the campaign and Russia’s attempt to influence the campaign, right? ï
Q ï ïYes, I mean, I think --

MR. SPICER: ïYes, I mean that's --ï

Q ï ïThat was the backdrop.ï

MR. SPICER: ïRight. ïThat's the backdrop. ïAnd then -- and so I think in the one instance where it happened where there was someone that misled someone, they were let go. ï

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

25

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

25/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 58 of 160

So for you to start asking questions about, well, what if these other individuals had a meeting? ïWell, were they ever asked about it? ïI mean there’s a big diyerence between did

someone meet with someone; and did someone mislead somebody about meeting someone. ïAnd that is a very, very big diyerence in those questions.

And that's one of the things that I think is important to distinguish. ïPeople can meet with people. ïThe question is did they do something wrong. ïDid they mislead somebody? ïAnd those are all very, very diyerent categories.

April.
Q ï ïOkay, Sean, I have a couple of topics. ïAnd back on this following up, so the question is: ïUnder what capacity was he in when he met with the ambassador? ïAnd what did they talk about?
MR. SPICER: ïWho is he?
Q ï ïSessions.
MR. SPICER: ïI don't know. ï
Q ï ïAnd then under -- then when he was under oath, he said he didn't do it. ïBut then we find out later, so what do you say --ï
MR. SPICER: ïNo, no. ïWell, first of all, I’m not going to -- I’ll refer you back to the Department of Justice. ïI know -- my understanding is he’s amending his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee from what I’ve heard. ïSo I’ll let his people -- but I do think that his explanation that he gave was very -- was that he was answering a question did you have any meetings with anyone with respect to the campaign.ï

And I think in his mind, it was very clear that, I never met with anybody with respect to the campaign. ïI met with someone in my Senate oyice, in my capacity as a United States senator, with Senate stay to discuss foreign policy or whatever it was that he was discussing. ï
I think the Senator discussed this in his media conference last week Thursday. ïSo I don't -- I guess the issue is with respect to what was talked about, I don't know. ïThat's up to him.

But I do think the way he described it was very clear that he believed he was answering Senator Franken’s question with respect to activity involving the campaign and attempts to -- as I said to Sara, like this whole idea of influencing the election. ïMeeting with an ambassador about an area of foreign policy in his Senate oyice with his Senate stay was clearly not a campaign event.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

26

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

26/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 59 of 160

Q ï ïOkay, so now on the leak issue. ïYou're talking about Congress doing an investigation. ïBut some of these leaks are coming from top oyicials, people who know insider information. ïWhat has the President said to his stay as it relates to the leaks in reference to

trying to find out himself, not just from top-level people, what has he said to people about the leaks, about trying to stop it, or trying to find out what’s happening?ï

MR. SPICER: ïWell, I think the President made clear in his comments when he stood before you all a couple weeks ago that his main concern is national security. ïThat's -- when he
keeps talking about the leaks, his concern is the leaks that damage and undermine national security, the leaks that deal with classified and other information. ïThat's what his main concern is. ïAnd I don't think -- that's not a White House issue. ïThat's sort of -- that is an issue that is beyond the White House. ïWe're not --ï

Q ï ïOther leaks don't matter, but the national --

MR. SPICER: ïNo, no, I think -- it’s not that other leaks don't matter. ïI think his issue that he has talked about and his concern is the leaks of national security. ïIt’s not that he’s saying, other leaks are okay. ï

But I think the ones that threaten our public safety or potentially put our country in harm are the ones that he really cares about. ï

Peter.

Q ï ïI have a question. ïI’m sorry. ïThis President reached out to former President Obama several times when he was President.ï

MR. SPICER: ïThat's right.ï

Q ï ïThey started building something. ïThere was a bridge. ïNow some people in the Obama camp are considering these conversations about, or these tweets crazy. ïAnd the question is now: ïWith this divide between these two, and President Trump may need to one day reach back to former President Obama, how do you think that will play out? ïDo you think that these two will never come back together again? ïIs this something he could have talked to him about before he went on Twitter? ïThere is now a chasm. ïThere’s a divide that wasn’t
there a couple of weeks ago.

MR. SPICER: ïOkay, well, there was a divide during the campaign, too. ïI don't think that -- I think that, as you saw, and the President has made it very clear, he said some things about the President. ïAnd the President said stuy -- about the campaign. ïI think they came together for the good of the country. ïAnd in cases where they can come together for a common good and to talk about what’s in the country’s best interests, they will.

But I unEdXeH.rsCtCaTnOdMyAoCuLErOpDo-BinALtL. ïDIEjuC.st think the Presiden27t --ï Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

27/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 60 of 160

Q ï ïDid he burn a bridge?

Q ï ïHold up, hold on.

MR. SPICER: ïThank you. ïBut I think that they’ll be just fine. ïSo go ahead. ïThat's you.ï

Q ï ïOh, good.

MR. SPICER: ïYes.

Q ï ïHi, Sean.

MR. SPICER: ïHi, Julie. ïYou've been very patient.

Q ï ïYes, I have. ïThanks.

MR. SPICER: ïI think it’s your first time.

Q ï ïIt is, yes.

MR. SPICER: ïWell, welcome. ïSee how pleasant this is?

Q ï ïI was feeling like how can I not get called on my first time? ïTen years ago, Bob Levinson disappeared in Iran. ïAnd I know the President talked about this a little bit on the campaign trail. ïIs there anything you can tell us about how the administration is approaching this case? ïHave they been in communication with his family or any updates on that?

MR. SPICER: ïI think we put out a statement from the NSC on Friday on this -- Victoria. ïI think we -- so we have been in communication with his family. ïI believe they were here -- or we were in touch with them last week. ïAnd obviously, we continue to hold out hope. ïBut the administration has been in touch with his family.ï

Q ï ïSean, the call to Netanyahu, what prompted that? ï

MR. SPICER: ïI don't know, Dave. ïI’ll find out. ïI just know it happened. ïAnd I got a little bit of a --ï

Q ï ïAs you might know, the Prime Minister is meeting later this week with Vladimir Putin. ïDid the President and the Prime Minister talk about Syria at all?

MR. SPICER: ïI don't know. ïI know that they had a discussion about regional threats, so I don't want to get ahead of this.

David Jackson.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

28

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

28/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 61 of 160

Q ï ïComey did tell people this weekend that President Obama did not order these wiretaps,

and he did want the Justice Department to put out that statement. ïDoes President Obama

believe --ï

MR. SPICER: ïAre you -- like I said, I am not -- wait, so --ï

Q ï ïDoes President Trump believe Comey when he says that President Obama did not authorize these wiretaps?

MR. SPICER: ïMy question is, is that I don't think that we've confirmed that Director Comey did say that. ïI don't -- I’m not aware. ïAside from reading stories that cite anonymous sources saying that he did, I’m not aware that that actually happened. ïSo that's the first
issue that I think we need to resolve.

Q ï ïWell, people we trust did tell us that he did.

MR. SPICER: ïWell, with all due respect, not you, but I think that we've had a number of reports that I’ve seen that -- about things that have occurred in the last 40-some-odd days that actually didn't occur, but anonymous sources said they did.

Peter Alexander.

Q ï ïSean, to be clear, you said earlier as an on-the-record source for the President’s wiretapping claims, he referred to the former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. ïI just want to ask you to clarify if you could because his public comments were on Sunday, a day azer the President tweeted about this. ï And even in his public comments, he said that he based
his information “on news reports.”

MR. SPICER: ïOkay. ïBut I’m just saying that he is -- someone asked whether it was an on-therecord comment. ïAnd that is on the record.

Q ï ïBut I was saying, was there an on -- you were being asked was there an on-the-record comment in advance of the President’s tweets to which he was basing his information? ïDid he have anything better than anonymous sources?

MR. SPICER: ïI don't -- I’m not -- as I said before, I’m not going to get into the elements of that. ïI’ll just -- I’m going to wait until the House and Senate.

Q ï ïReally, just on a past comment that the President had made about the suggestion that there were -- or the claim, in fact, that there were 3 million to 5 million people who voted illegally in this country -- he made this claim more than a month ago. ïI just want to get a sense now on the update on any investigation into that and where it stands, given the explosive nature of such a claim.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

29

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

29/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 62 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïI think we’ve touched on this, but he has asked Vice President Pence to lead a task force on this. ïWe have -- I'll get more for you. ïI know that there’s been some discussion with some Secretaries of State and others on some of this. ïI know you had that issue in

Texas come -- last week, and I'm trying to remember the exact nature of it, but there has been now further evidence that people have voted illegally. ïAnd I think that one of the

things the task force is looking to do is to gather additional information of what -- it's still in

the process of getting the task members named.

Q ï ïDoes the task force, I guess, exist yet? ïOr is --

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, the Vice President has been talking to folks potentially to serve on it, and I know that several Secretaries of State have expressed --

Q ï ïIt hasn't convened yet, but he’s been talking to folks about it.

MR. SPICER: ïThat's correct. ïThat's correct.

Q ï ïSean, two subjects here, following up on the wiretap question. ïStepping away from what the President knew or the basis of his tweets, how appropriate is it for a President to make an explosive charge as fact and then send you folks out to step away and say this maybe happened and we should investigate it?

MR. SPICER: ïWell, again, I think there’s two things. ïOne is the President’s tweets speak for themselves. ïWe're making that very --

Q ï ïBut --

MR. SPICER: ïHold on. ïAnd I think the President has been very clear, as we've stated, that I
think there’s enough there that we want the House and Senate intelligence to use the resources they do to make sure that they look into this matter. ïI mean, that's -- there is --
anyway, I do not want to get ahead of where they may go with this or what they may look at, but I'm going to leave it to them. ïIf we start down the rabbit hole of discussing some of this stuy I think then we end up in a very diyicult place.

I look forward to seeing you guys tomorrow. ïIf you can bring your cameras --

Q ï ïSean, housekeeping-wise, you said that we’d get some clarification on a number of questions -- to all of us. ïIf you could do that today through the pool --ï

MR. SPICER: ïYeah, I think we can try to do that through the pool. ïIf not, we'll write everything -- we generally write down everything and try to get back to the reporters. ïSo I will have the team -- and then get it out by the pool.

Q ï ïWill we be hearing from the President this week, since we didn’t today?

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

30

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

30/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 63 of 160

MR. SPICER: ïI'm sure at some point we'll do either something that we -- a photo spray or

something. ïI think that we have a pretty good track record of making the President

available to folks. ï

Q ï ï-- kind of unusual.

MR. SPICER: ïWhat’s unusual? ï

Q ï ïTo not --ï

MR. SPICER: ïIt's Monday.

Q ï ïExactly.

Q ï ïBut you see -- everything is closed. ïNormally we have a photo spray or something.

MR. SPICER: ïI just -- I think that's -- don't give me this “normally we do.” ïI made it very clear at the beginning of this, April, that we have some things on camera, some oy. ïLast week the President traveled two days, he had the joint session. ïWe briefed every single day --

Q ï ïIt’s not about us, it’s about the American public seeing their President. ïAnd we have to -ï

MR. SPICER: ïWait, hold on. ïSeeing their President. ïThe guy is in meetings all day. ïI'm trying -- how many times did you complain about the President --

Q ï ïHe signed executive orders. ïYou had us -- last week you said --ï

MR. SPICER: ïHold on, hold on. ïHe signed an executive order. ïI mean, this is a President,
when it comes to accessibility and allowing the press access, I think I've heard from several of you -- we have gone above and beyond allowing the press into events, into sprays. ïWe've had greater access. ï

So, with all due respect, I mean that's not been the case. ïOne day out of the last 41 or 40, whatever it's been -- but I think this President has been extremely accessible, extremely transparent, as far as -- he signed an executive order this morning that we then put all three Cabinet Secretaries that were relevant to implement this out.

I'll be out tomorrow. ïI think we have an opportunity -- look, I made it very clear from the beginning of this that we’d have a briefing every day. ïWe've gaggled every day, we've made ourselves available to you. ïSo, with all due respect, that's not a very accurate assessment of
how we've been acting.

Thanks. ïI'll see you guys tomorrow.

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

31

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

31/42

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JPLreRss GaDggolecbuy mPreessnSte6cr8et-a2ry SeFanilSepdice0r 3| w/1hit3eh/o1u7se.goPv age 64 of 160

END ï

2:50 P.M. EST

¬ŧ­ 

HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN USA.gov Privacy Policy Copyright Policy

EXH. CC TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

32

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

32/42

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 65 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017 Donald J. TrCumapsoen T2w:i1tte7r:-"cIfvth-e0b0an1w3e5re-aJnLnoRuncedDwoithcauomneewneetk6n8oti-c2e, theF"iblaedd" w0ou3ld/1ru3sh/1in7to ouPr caougntery 6du6rinog ftha1t6w0eek. A lot of bad "dudes…

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!

RETWEETS
36,194

LIKES
174,505

5:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017

[ 50K \ 36K

175K

Donald J. Trump K$

© 2017 Twitter

@ 4S5tartehteaPslDroeofsnAiadmledneTtrrioucfamthpJ@ seooUrislenhbaiytlDMefdooiknreeaillgdK$nTer@rusmJforpsohSmAuCiabnto_ochPoMueerktivii1ke7aTeH9secnlry7ema·l5pAptsJo,dioaCl0sinnceiynsn3ft0oeinrsclhuadveed

been killed in terror in your Muslim ban

attacks

on

~

[ 115

\ 760

4.0K

 Joined March 2009

Josh Mikel K$ @Joshua_Mikel · Jan 30

~

@realDonaldTrump However since 1975 nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by

citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates & Egypt

[ 46

\ 588

2.9K

Josh Mikel K$ @Joshua_Mikel · Jan 30

~

@realDonaldTrump what do those nations have in common? You have multi-

million $ licensing & development deals in all of those countries GTFO

[ 35

\ 546

3.2K

Josh Mikel K$ @Joshua_Mikel · Jan 30

~

@realDonaldTrump but yeah, tell us more about the "bad dudes" you're

protecting us from

[ 24

\ 315

2.4K

Josh Mikel K$ @Joshua_Mikel · Jan 30

~

@realDonaldTrump and for the love of god, TEACH YOUR SUPPORTERS THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR & YOU'RE

[ 106 \ 434
EXH. DD TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

3.3K
1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 67 of 160
EXHIBIT EE

3/13/2017

Case 2:1P7ro-tcesvte-r0s 0C1au3se5d-'JOLnlyRDisrDupotiocnu' Smurreonuntdi6ng8Im-2migrFatiiloendOrd0e3r:/W1h3it/e1H7ousePAadvgiseer 6- A8BCofNe1w6s0












EXH. EE TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-caused-disruption-surrounding-immigration-order-white-house/story?id=45233560

Seattle, WA 98104

1/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:1P7ro-tcesvte-r0s 0C1au3se5d-'JOLnlyRDisrDupotiocnu' Smurreonuntdi6ng8Im-2migrFatiiloendOrd0e3r:/W1h3it/e1H7ousePAadvgiseer 6- A9BCofNe1w6s0




EXH. EE TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-caused-disruption-surrounding-immigration-order-white-house/story?id=45233560

Seattle, WA 98104

2/10

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:1P7ro-tcesvte-r0s 0C1au3se5d-'JOLnlyRDisrDupotiocnu' Smurreonuntdi6ng8Im-2migrFatiiloendOrd0e3r:/W1h3it/e1H7ousePAadvgiseer 7- A0BCofNe1w6s0




Recommended by





EXH. EE TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-caused-disruption-surrounding-immigration-order-white-house/story?id=45233560

Seattle, WA 98104

3/10

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 71 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017 Donald J. TrCumapsoen T2w:i1tte7r:-"cBvec-a0us0e1th3e5ba-nJwLaRs lifteDd boycaujumdgee,nmtan6y8ve-r2y badFainled ddan0ge3r/o1us3p/e1op7le mPayabge epou7ri2ngoinfto1ou6r 0country. A terrible deci...

b o Home

Moments

Search Twitter

:

Have an account? Log in

Donald J. Trump K$
@realDonaldTrump

/
k Follow ~

Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision

RETWEETS
29,936

LIKES
139,287

1:44 PM - 4 Feb 2017

[ 53K \ 30K

139K

Donald J. Trump Amy Holden Jones
@realDoKn$aldTrump
@realDonaldTrump

K$ @© 2a0h1o7ldTewnjitt·eFr eb About Help Center
Terms

4

~

45th President of the United

Privacy policy

States of America

Cookies Ads info

 Joined March 2009

EXH. FF TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827996357252243456

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 73 of 160
EXHIBIT

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 74 of 160

Comments

Subscribe

Members

Starting at 99 cents Sign In

John Kelly testiﬁes travel ban

should have been delayed

MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said, given a second chance, he might do things differently in rolling out the order.
By Matt Zapotosky WASHINGTON POST FEBRUARY 07, 2017

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly

predicted Tuesday that the Trump administration will prevail in

its bid to reinstate an executive order temporarily barring refugees

EXH. GG TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
1 of 5 frCTeawseeeeNat orS.th2i:ac1r7el-ecvs-0.0S132u56-bJLsRcribe now

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

as wellCaasseCpo2me:1mo7ep-ncltvse-0f0r1o35m-JLsRevDeoncuMmeunst l6i8m-2-mFilaejdo0r3i/t1y3/1c7ouPnatgreie75s offr1o6m0 entering the United States and mused that judges might be considering the matter from an ‘‘academic,’’ rather than a national security, perspective.
‘‘Of course, in their courtrooms, they’re protected by people like me,’’ he said.
Testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee, Kelly forcefully defended President Trump’s executive order. He said that it is ‘‘entirely possible’’ that dangerous people are now entering the country with the order on hold — as Trump has said via Twitter — and that officials might not know about them until it is too late.
‘‘Not until the boom,’’ he said when asked if he could provide evidence of a dangerous person coming into the country since the ban was suspended.

Ground Game Enter email address

Sign Up

But Kelly acknowledged that if he were given a second chance, he

might do things differently in rolling out the order. That stands

somewhat in contrast to Trump’s recent assertion to Fox News EXH. GG TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
1 of 5 frCTeawseeeeNat orS.th2i:ac1r7el-ecvs-0.0S132u56-bJLsRcribe now

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

ChannCeal’sseCoB2m:i1ml7le-ncOtvs-’0R01e3il5l-yJLtRhaDtotchumeeinmt 6p8-l2emFeilendt0a3t/i1o3/n17wPaasg‘e‘v7e6royf 160 smooth.’’

‘‘In retrospect, I should have — this is all on me, by the way — I should have delayed it just a bit, so that I could talk to members of Congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this, to prepare them for what was coming, although I think most people would agree that this has been a topic of President Trump certainly during his campaign and during the transition process,’’ Kelly said.

Kelly later said, though, that most of the confusion is attributable to court orders and occurred not among Customs and Border Protection officers, but protesters in airports.

Kelly’s comments came as a federal appeals court panel was preparing to hear oral arguments on whether Trump’s ban should be reinstated. The hearing marks a critical juncture for the president’s directive, which a lower federal court judge in Washington had ordered suspended last week.

Kelly said that he was not criticizing any judge but that their considerations were ‘‘academic’’ and possibly in a ‘‘vacuum.’’

‘‘I have nothing but respect for our judges, but they live in a different world than I do,’’ he said.

EXH. GG TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
1 of 5 frCTeawseeeeNat orS.th2i:ac1r7el-ecvs-0.0S132u56-bJLsRcribe now

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Kelly aClsaoseCco2ma:1ms7te-ncttvsh-0e01T3r5u-JmLRp Ddoicruemcetnivt 6e8a-2s aFilmede0r3e/13‘‘/p17auPsaeg’e’ t7h7 aotf 1w60ould allow US officials to assess vetting procedures, and he said they were not contemplating expanding it beyond the seven affected countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
The opposition to the measure is mounting. On Monday, 10 former high-ranking diplomatic and national security officials; nearly 100 Silicon Valley tech companies; more than 280 law professors; a coalition of 16 state or district attorneys general; and a host of civil liberties and other organizations formally lent their support to the legal bid to block Trump’s travel ban.
The high-ranking diplomatic and security officials — among them former secretaries of state John F. Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former CIA director Leon Panetta, former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael V. Hayden — said there was ‘‘no national security purpose’’ for a complete barring of people from the seven affected countries.
‘‘Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order,’’ the group said. ‘‘Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, have been traced to foreign nationals at all.’’

EXH. GG TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
1 of 5 frCTeawseeeeNat orS.th2i:ac1r7el-ecvs-0.0S132u56-bJLsRcribe now

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

The apCpaesaeClo2sm:1mc7eo-ncutvs-r0t01p3a5n-JeLRl wDilolcuhmaevnet 6t8o-2coFnilesdid03e/r13w/1h7 ePthageer7T8rouf 1m60p exceeded his authority and violated the First Amendment and federal immigration law, and whether his order imposes irreparable harm on those it affects. The three judges hearing the matter are William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by President Carter; Judge Richard Clifton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland, who was appointed by President Obama.
The states of Washington and Minnesota argued in a filing Monday that reinstating the ban would ‘‘unleash chaos again’’ by ‘‘separating families, stranding our university students and faculty, and barring travel.’’
Justice Department lawyers countered that noncitizens outside the United States have ‘‘no substantive right or basis for judicial review in the denial of a visa at all,’’ and that, at most, the lower court judge should have limited his ruling to ‘‘previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.’’
After the appeals court rules, either side can ask the Supreme Court to intervene. The Supreme Court, though, remains one justice short, and many see it as ideologically split 4 to 4. A tie would keep in place whatever the appeals court decides.

EXH. GG TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
1 of 5 frCTeawseeeeNat orS.th2i:ac1r7el-ecvs-0.0S132u56-bJLsRcribe now

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 79 of 160

Comments

SHOW 26 COMMENTS

Stay updated, right in your news feed. Most Popular In News

The biggest threat facing middle-age men isn’t smoking or obesity. It’s loneliness.
As men grow older, they tend to let their friendships lapse. But there’s still time to do something about it. MORE...

24m would lose health coverage by 2026 under GOP plan, report says
By 2026, 24 million people would lose coverage under the plan — and federal deficits would be reduced by $337 billion, according to the report. MORE...

Preparations underway as major storm barrels toward Northeast
School districts and colleges announced closings for Tuesday, including Boston. Governor Baker warned residents to stay off the roads as a major nor’easter approached. MORE...

Celtics draftee Ante Zizic asserts, ‘I am ready for the NBA’

The 20-year-old big man is making a strong impression with his

Turkish club in the Euroleague. MORE...

EXH. GG TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.
1 of 5 frCTeawseeeeNat orS.th2i:ac1r7el-ecvs-0.0S132u56-bJLsRcribe now

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 80 of 160
EXHIBIT HH

3/13/2017

Case 2:1T7ru-mcpvt-o0s0ig1n n3e5w-iJmLmRigratioDnopocliucymafteernmt u6lti8pl-e2courFt dielefeadts0of3tr/a1ve3l /b1an7| USPnaewgse| T8he1Gouafrd1ia6n0

Trump to sign new immigration policy after multiple court defeats of travel ban
The justice department plans to rescind the ban and issue a new executive order to eliminate ‘erroneous constitutional concerns’ after an

The statement contradicted Donald Trump’s comments from Thursday, when he lambasted the ninth circuit, calling it ‘a bad court’ that had made ‘a bad decision’. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock
Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco
Thursday 16 February 2017 16.06 EST
Donald Trump plans to rescind his executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and replace it with a new one, according to a Department of Justice court ﬁling made on Thursday.

EXH. HH TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/trump-travel-ban-replacement-us-immigration

Seattle, WA 98104

1/4

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:1T7ru-mcpvt-o0s0ig1n n3e5w-iJmLmRigratioDnopocliucymafteernmt u6lti8pl-e2courFt dielefeadts0of3tr/a1ve3l /b1an7| USPnaewgse| T8he2Gouafrd1ia6n0

“Rather than continuing this litigation, the President intends in the near

future to rescind the Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised

Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were

constitutional concerns,” the justice department wrote in a brief to the ninth

circuit court of appeals.

Enforcement of Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven majorityMuslim countries has been suspended since a federal district judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order against it. The injunction was upheld by the ninth circuit court of appeals in a 9 February ruling.

The justice department ﬁling argued that the ninth circuit should not reconsider its 9 February ruling against the travel ban but wait until the new order is released.

The ﬁling contradicted Trump’s own statements at an extraordinary press conference on Thursday, when the president lambasted the ninth circuit, calling it “a bad court” that had made “a bad decision”, and stating: “We are appealing that and we are going further.”

Trump later stated that the new executive order would “comprehensively protect our country” and would be “tailored to the decision we got down from the court”.

Trump’s remarks continued his ongoing war of words against the judiciary. “That circuit is in chaos, and that circuit is frankly in turmoil,” he said of the country’s largest appeals court.

He also twice cited a misleading statistic about the ninth circuit’s rate of having its rulings overturned, saying, “I’ve heard 80%. I ﬁnd that hard to believe. That’s just a number I heard. That they’re overturned 80% of the time.”

The question of how many rulings the ninth circuit has had overturned has become a major talking point in rightwing media. On 9 February, Fox News host Sean Hannity called the ninth circuit “the most liberal court of appeals, the most overturned court in the country”, according to Politifact.

A blogpost by rightwing outlet the Daily Caller put forward the “80% reversal

rate at supreme court” ﬁgure, citing an analysis by the American Bar

EXH. HH TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/trump-travel-ban-replacement-us-immigration

Seattle, WA 98104

2/4

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:1T7ru-mcpvt-o0s0ig1n n3e5w-iJmLmRigratioDnopocliucymafteernmt u6lti8pl-e2courFt dielefeadts0of3tr/a1ve3l /b1an7| USPnaewgse| T8he3Gouafrd1ia6n0

Association.

Both claims about the court are misleading, as fact-checking sites Snopes and Politifact have pointed out. The supreme court only reviews about 0.1% of all appeals court decisions each year. Of the cases it took up, the supreme court did reverse or vacate 80% of cases from the ninth circuit from 1999 to 2008. But those reversals represent a tiny fraction of the ninth circuit’s total decisions.

The ninth circuit is just the latest branch of the judiciary to feel the president’s ire. He referred to the federal district judge who initially granted the temporary injunction against his executive order as a “so-called judge” on Twitter. During the campaign, he also accused a judge presiding over a case involving his “university” of being biased due to his “Mexican heritage”.

Trump said the new executive order would be released sometime next week.

The Washington state attorney general’s oﬃce, which led the successful suit against the travel ban, tweeted that the justice department’s ﬁling was “conceding defeat”.

Since you’re here …
… we’ve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike some other news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism open to all. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.

Become a supporter

Make a contribution

Topics
EXH. HH TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/trump-travel-ban-replacement-us-immigration

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/4

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:1T7ru-mcpvt-o0s0ig1n n3e5w-iJmLmRigratioDnopocliucymafteernmt u6lti8pl-e2courFt dielefeadts0of3tr/a1ve3l /b1an7| USPnaewgse| T8he4Gouafrd1ia6n0

Trump travel ban

US immigration/Donald Trump/news

EXH. HH TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/trump-travel-ban-replacement-us-immigration

Seattle, WA 98104

4/4

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 85 of 160
EXHIBIT II

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001T3ru5m-pJdLelRays nDewotrcauveml beannatfte6r 8we-l2l-revFieiwleeddsp0ee3c/h1-3C/N1N7PolitPicsa.cgoem 86 of 160

Trump delays new travel ban after wellreviewed speech
By Laura Jarrett, Ariane de Vogue and Jeremy Diamond, CNN @ Updated 6:01 AM ET, Wed March 1, 2017

Immigration violations: The one thing to know 01:15

Story highlights
The new travel ban will exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump has delayed plans to sign a reworked travel ban in the wake of positive reaction to his ﬁrst address to Congress, a senior administration o〃cial told CNN.
The decision came late Tuesday night as positive reviews ﬂooded in for Trump's speech, which struck a largely optimistic and unifying tone.

Signing the executive order Wednesday, as originally indicated

Two sources also expect that the

by the White House, would have undercut the favorable

President will formally revoke the

coverage. The o〃cial didn't deny the positive reception was part of the administration's calculus in pushing back the travel

previous executive order

ban announcement.

 By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and

o〃cial sEaXiTHd..eII rTOmMsACLoEOfDS-BeALrLvDEicC.e.

"We want the (executive order) to have its own 'moment,'" the

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

httpT://hwewws.ucndnCd.caeosmen/N2c0oh1. 7a2/:0n127g/2-ec8v/p-o0ofl0it1pic3lsa5/t-nrJuLsmRcp-atrmaveel-abasn-Tvrisuam-hopldearns/d his top advisers returned to the White61H5oSuescSoenedaatfAtlteve,erW.,hSAitse9.8a41d0004dress to 1/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001T3ru5m-pJdLelRays nDewotrcauveml beannatfte6r 8we-l2l-revFieiwleeddsp0ee3c/h1-3C/N1N7PolitPicsa.cgoem 87 of 160

The sudden change of plans came as Trump and his top advisers returned to the White House after his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

Trump's original executive order, signed a week after he took o〃ce, banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US and temporarily suspended the entry of all refugees. A federal court issued a temporary stay that halted implementation of the travel ban earlier this month, a decision that was later upheld by a federal appeals court.

The new travel ban will exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders from the ban entirely, sources familiar with the plans told CNN earlier Tuesday.

While sources caution that the document has not yet been ﬁnalized and is still subject to change, there will be major changes:

· The new executive order will make clear that legal permanent residents (otherwise known as green card holders) are excluded from any travel ban.

· Those with validly issued visas will also be exempt from the ban.

· The new order is expected to revise or exclude language prioritizing the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.

Speaking in Munich, Germany, earlier this month, Department of Homeland Secretary John Kelly promised a "phased-in" approach to minimize disruption this time around.

But what remains to be seen are the other key aspects of the new executive order, especially in terms of refugees, including:

· What happens to the suspension of the refugee program for 120 days?

· Will Syrian nationals still be barred indeﬁnitely?

· Will the cap on the number of refugees change? The ﬁrst version of the executive order caps it at 50,000 for ﬁscal year 2017.

Two sources also expect that the President will formally revoke the earlier executive order, despite repeated statements from White House press secretary Sean Spicer that the two orders would co-exist on a "dual track."

The administration could potentially argue that the existing challenges to the original executive order are moot, but the challengers tell CNN the legal battles will likely continue even after the new order is signed.

"Exempting lawful permanent residents and current visa holders will not cure the core legal problem -- that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination, as evidenced by the President's repeated statements calling for a Muslim ban," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt explained. "That discriminatory taint cannot be removed simply by eliminating a few words or clever tinkering by lawyers."

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and



EXTH.eII rTOmMsACLoEOfDS-BeALrLvDEicC.e.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-001T3ru5m-pJdLelRays nDewotrcauveml beannatfte6r 8we-l2l-revFieiwleeddsp0ee3c/h1-3C/N1N7PolitPicsa.cgoem 88 of 160

New Utah bigamy law passes Senate after 'Sister Wives' suit
'SNL' is right: Ivanka is complicit
Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping
Rex Tillerson silent as rumors swirl
I

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and



EXTH.eII rTOmMsACLoEOfDS-BeALrLvDEicC.e.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/3

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 89 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

CasFeam2ily:1of7P-ocrtvla-n0d's0b1o3m5b -sJusLpeRct, MDohoamceudmMoehnamt u6d8, fl-e2d chaFosileindSo0m3al/ia1f3or/n1e7w lifePinaAgmeeri9ca0| Oorfeg1o6nL0ive.com

Family of Portland's bomb suspect, Mohamed Mohamud, ﬂed chaos in Somalia for new life in America

By Lynne Terry | The Oregonian/OregonLive Email the author | Follow on Twitter on December 04, 2010 at 8:00 PM, updated December 05, 2010 at 9:46 AM
The suspect in the foiled Portland bomb plot, Mohamed Mohamud, was born into chaos, his family ﬂeeing a bloody civil war in Somalia to a crowded refugee camp in Kenya. They left behind a comfortable city lifestyle, scrambled for survival, then eventually were reunited in the United States with hope for a new start.
Born in 1991, Mohamud was their golden son.
The boy's father, Osman Barre, was a professor of computer engineering with a knack for languages. His mother, Mariam Barre, was a businesswoman who worked in banking. In their ﬂight for safety, with boatloads of refugees pouring into Kenya, they were separated, with the father ending up in a sprawling refugee camp and the mother and baby stranded behind.
For more than 18 months, Barre had no idea whether they were alive.
(Related story: Portland bomb plot case likely to serve as primer on entrapment, FBI sting issues)
But once he reached Portland, he never gave up searching for them as he melded into American life.
Friends and associates say rarely have they known such wonderful parents, calling them intelligent, persevering and giving.
But now, they say, nearly two decades after ﬂeeing the bloodshed in Mogadishu, the family is again facing wrenching despair: Their 19‑year‑old son is accused of planning to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square on Nov. 26.

In early 1992, Osman Barre ﬂed Mogadishu with 21 members of his extended family to the Utange refugee camp outside Mombasa, Kenya, which sits on the Indian Ocean. The camp, which grew to 40,000 refugees, taxed international oﬃcials as they tried feed everyone. Barre pitched in as well, teaching United Nations oﬃcials to speak Somali.

The United States was one of the countries oﬀering asylum. The family, with no kin in the U.S., gained the sponsorship of several churches in the Portland area.

After 18 months in the camp, the 22 Somalis arrived at Portland International Airport at midnight on Oct. 27, 1993.

"It was our responsibility to help them ﬁnd a place to live, get to appointments and get settled," said Sylvia Eagan, then pastor at

the Peace Church of the Brethren in Southeast Portland. "Only four of ﬁve of them spoke any English."

EXH. JJ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/12/suspect_in_portland_bomb_plot.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasFeam2ily:1of7P-ocrtvla-n0d's0b1o3m5b -sJusLpeRct, MDohoamceudmMoehnamt u6d8, fl-e2d chaFosileindSo0m3al/ia1f3or/n1e7w lifePinaAgmeeri9ca1| Oorfeg1o6nL0ive.com

It didn't take long for her to appreciate Barre and the rest of the family as remarkable human beings.
"I can't say enough about what wonderful people they are," Eagan said. "They went through a very hard time."
Eagan and Eileen Wilson, another member of the church, found the family temporary housing in Southeast Portland, helped them get food stamps, taught them to ride the bus and steered them to free English lessons for immigrants
Barre, who was 32, scrambled to ﬁnd work. A former professor at Mogadishu University who speaks ﬁve languages, he got a job on the ﬂoor of a bottling plant. But he kept searching for a position that matched his skills and education.
"He's an intelligent man," Eagan said. "He was very willing to do whatever he needed to do to start at the bottom and work up. Regularly, he would go to Eagan's house to call a contact near the refugee camp, trying to track down his 21‑year‑old wife and son. For months, he didn't know whether they were alive.
"He wanted very badly for them to come," Wilson said. "He was going to do whatever it took to get her here."
He also thought about others.
Wilson said that one time when they were chatting about their lives she casually mentioned that the fence in her backyard was falling apart.
The following Saturday he showed up on her doorstep with other members of his family to ﬁx it.
"They tore down the old fence," Wilson said. "They took me to buy the lumber. They made a new fence in the afternoon. And then they asked, 'Now what else can we do?'"
They all dug some ﬂowerbeds together.
"I thought how blessed I am to have these people in my life," she said. "I've always thought that Osman was one of the most stellar people that I know."
***

Around 1995, Barre was hired as an engineer at Intel. Then there was more good news: His wife and son were coming to Portland.
Eagan, who took him to the airport, said Barre was a bundle of joyful nerves.
Mohamed Mohamud, about 5 years old when he emerged from the plane, was shy around his father.
"Osman was overjoyed to have them with him again," Eagan said. "He was very proud of his son and his daughter, who was born the ﬁrst year after his wife arrived."
Mohamud was a quiet, polite child.
"He kissed my hand every time he saw me," Wilson said. "He would take his shoes oﬀ and take my hands and kiss me."
The family settled into life in Beaverton, home to a large community of Somali immigrants. Mariam Barre, gracious and intelligent, quickly learned English, Eagan said, landing a job at a company that contracts with the U.S. Postal Service.

Â» B omb p lo t special c over a ge
Your guide to the story
Â» Ti me li n e
Â» All s tor i es
Â» All p h otos
Â» All vi d eos

EXH. JJ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/12/suspect_in_portland_bomb_plot.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasFeam2ily:1of7P-ocrtvla-n0d's0b1o3m5b -sJusLpeRct, MDohoamceudmMoehnamt u6d8, fl-e2d chaFosileindSo0m3al/ia1f3or/n1e7w lifePinaAgmeeri9ca2| Oorfeg1o6nL0ive.com

Mohamud, who has a diﬀerent surname from his father which is typical in Somalia, went to Markham Elementary and Jackson Middle schools in Portland. At Jackson, where he was called Mo Mo or Mo squared, he had an easy smile, quick joke and enthusiasm for basketball, friends say.

Many of his middle school buddies attended Wilson High School but Mohamud, whose family moved a lot, attended Westview in the Beaverton School District.

"He seemed like a cool kid to me," said Alexander Archield, a Westview classmate who played basketball with Mohamud at lunch. "He had a nice little shot and he hustled around a bit."

During high school, he was known as a class clown, who chatted about sports and chased after girls.

One time he bet a classmate, James Hickey, that he could get the phone number of one girl.

"He bet me $10 he could her number by the end of the day," Hickey said. "That never happened. He still owes me $10."

Mohamud also skipped classes, recording songs on school computers.

"I remember him always being in the media studies room," Hickey said. "He'd be rapping or trying to rap. I thought it was kind of funny."

He'd tell friends he was from Brooklyn and sometimes wore camouﬂage jackets.

"He got his work done but not until the last minute, said Michael Cornea, a Westview classmate. "He liked gooﬁng oﬀ."

Friends say he buckled down as a sophomore.

"He had a whole new perspective on life," Hickey said. "Everything was really serious. He was getting straight As. In his freshman year, he was immature. At times, disrespectful. Talking back."

As a sophomore, Mohamud started thinking about jihad, he later told the FBI, according to court documents.

Sometimes the teen prayed with Muslim classmates in a space set aside for them at Westview.

"We were allowed to take 10 minutes out," said Aniq Tanwir, a student from Pakistan, who played basketball with Mohamud.

"I remember him as a pretty normal kid," Tanwir said. "He was always upbeat."

But Mohamud went through extreme phases, bouncing from being a party boy to a pious teen. At times he advocated his religion, saying it was the best in the world.

Cornea said he tried to convert friends.

"He would always talk about religious politics" in the Middle East and Afghanistan, Cornea said. "He wanted to push his point of view that Islam should be taken up by everyone."

Although Mohamud had a wide circle of friends from a wide range of backgrounds, the closest were Muslim immigrants, schoolmates say.

He didn't talk much about his family, who embraced American life while maintaining relationships in the Somali community. Like other practicing Muslims, they observed Ramadan, attended Friday prayers and didn't eat pork, Eagan said.

Mohamud wasn't known for being anti‑American.

"He may have joked," Tanwir said, "but I never heard him say anything anti‑American.

EXH. JJ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/12/suspect_in_portland_bomb_plot.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasFeam2ily:1of7P-ocrtvla-n0d's0b1o3m5b -sJusLpeRct, MDohoamceudmMoehnamt u6d8, fl-e2d chaFosileindSo0m3al/ia1f3or/n1e7w lifePinaAgmeeri9ca3| Oorfeg1o6nL0ive.com

Others did but didn't think much about it. Mohamud was just another student who appeared to get decent grades and took some demanding classes.
In his junior physics class, students had to give presentations on the workings of a mechanical device.
Several students picked staplers. Mohamud stood in front of the class, discussing the intricacies of a rocket‑propelled grenade.
Students were stunned.
"That's what a lot of terrorists were using," said Ross Thoresen, a classmate. "The fact that he's a Muslim and then does (the project) on the RPG" made everyone wonder about him.
"He was nice on the outside," said Wesley Naylor, who saw the RPG presentation, "but you could see that there was something iﬀy about him."
In his senior year, Mohamud worked on "Wink," Westview's poetry and arts magazine. The spring 2009 issue included a section about funny incidents that happened to students.
"I think that was the one he most heavily contributed to," said Valerie Barlow, a student editor. It was called "Flush my Life."
Mohamud graduated from Westview in June 2009, enrolling that fall at Oregon State University as a non‑degree student.
"He aspired to study engineering," said Todd Simmons, spokesman for the university.
His father was thrilled, telling friends and acquaintances that his son planned to be an engineer.
"He was very proud of him being such a good student and doing so well," Eagan said.
***
In Corvallis, Mohamud quickly became known as a drinker and smoker, with a taste for hookahs and marijuana. He attended parties, danced, told loud jokes and was seen intoxicated in a dormitory, riding the elevator up and down.
In October 2009, he was accused of date rape by a student after late night revelry at the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity house. The young woman, who drank at least four shots of tequila and four beers, said she blacked out. Oregon State Police, who investigated the case, did not pursue charges.
Mohamud kept writing poetry and rap songs, appeared in a play and attended football games. He aspired to write a rap song about the Beavers that would rival "I love my Ducks."
Occasionally, he worshipped at Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center in Corvallis.
"He would come once a month or once every two months," said imam Yosof Wanly. "It was minimal."
About this time, according to the FBI, Mohamud sought to go abroad to train to become an Islamic terrorist. He told undercover agents that his parents stopped him.
Osman and Mariam Barre, who were having problems of their own, separated about a year ago. But they were worried about their son becoming radicalized, said Isgow Mohamed, head of the Northwest Somali Community Organization in Portland.
Osman Barre reported his son to the authorities, Mohamed said.
"When you have a feeling that your son will end up dying on the street, you'd rather put him in a jail than on a suicide mission," Mohamed said.

EXH. JJ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/12/suspect_in_portland_bomb_plot.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

4/5

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

CasFeam2ily:1of7P-ocrtvla-n0d's0b1o3m5b -sJusLpeRct, MDohoamceudmMoehnamt u6d8, fl-e2d chaFosileindSo0m3al/ia1f3or/n1e7w lifePinaAgmeeri9ca4| Oorfeg1o6nL0ive.com

Last June, Mohamud tried to go to Alaska, but was on the no‑ﬂy list. He told the FBI that he had a ﬁshing job and had previously wanted to go to Yemen. He also said he wrote a few articles for online Islamic publications supporting jihad.
He attended the spring quarter, which ended in March, but did not sign up for classes again until this past fall.
He dropped out Oct. 6. About that time, he sent a text message to a Westview High School friend, Alex Masak, asking for a place to go and shoot a gun.
"I just kind of ignored it," Masak said.
Although not enrolled in classes, Mohamud was spotted at OSU. Wanly saw him at the campus library about a week and a half before the tree lighting ceremony in Pioneer Courthouse Square. He said Mohamud told a group of friends that he was going to Florida and was going to get married.
"Some of his friends cut him oﬀ because he was starting to act too weird," Wanly said.
Early in the morning on Black Friday, Mohamud was at Washington Square with a group of Muslim students from Corvallis. He appeared to be in a jovial and generous mood, insisting on buying coﬀee.
The next day he was behind bars, accused of plotting to trigger a vanful explosives.
The news has bewildered and shocked former classmates, friends and associates.
"I was just crushed," said Sylvia Eagan, thinking of Mohamud's father. "I knew how proud he was of his son. Regardless of whether he is found guilty or not, this is a devastating blow for a parent to have their child in this situation. He had big dreams, like all parents do, for his children."
Staﬀ researcher Lynne Palombo and writers Candice Ruud, Molly Hottle, Wendy Owen, Allan Brettman and Brent Hunsberger contributed to this story.
‑‑ Lynne Terry

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
© 2017 Oregon Live LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Oregon Live LLC.
Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.
Ad Choices

EXH. JJ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/12/suspect_in_portland_bomb_plot.html

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

5/5

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 95 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17Q-c&vA:-P0r0ot1ec3tin5g-tJheLNRationDFroomcuFmoreeignn tTe6rr8or-is2t EntFryilTeodTh0e 3Un/1ite3d/S1ta7tes |PHoamgeelan9d 6Secoufrit1y 60

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Contact Us Quick Links Site Map A-Z Index

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States
Release Date: March 6, 2017
March 6, 2017 11:30 a.m. EST Office of Public Affairs Contact: 202-282-8010
Q1. Who is subject to the suspension of entry under the Executive Order?
Per the Executive Order, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, who are outside the United States and who did not have a valid visa at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017, and do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order are not eligible to enter the United States while the temporary suspension remains in effect. Thus any individual who had a valid visa either on January 27, 2017 (prior to 5:00 PM) or holds a valid visa on the effective date of the Executive Order is not barred from seeking entry.

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

1/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17Q-c&vA:-P0r0ot1ec3tin5g-tJheLNRationDFroomcuFmoreeignn tTe6rr8or-is2t EntFryilTeodTh0e 3Un/1ite3d/S1ta7tes |PHoamgeelan9d 7Secoufrit1y 60
Q2. Will “in-transit” travelers within the scope of the Executive Order be denied entry into the United States and returned to their country of origin?
Those individuals who are traveling on valid visas and arrive at a U.S. port of entry will still be permitted to seek entry into the United States. All foreign nationals traveling with a visa must continue to satisfy all requirements for entry, including demonstrating that they are admissible. Additional information on applying for admission to the United States is available on CBP.gov. (https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/applying-
admission-united-states)
Q3. I am a national from one of the six affected countries currently overseas and in possession of a valid visa, but I have no prior travel to the United States. Can I travel to the United States?
Per the Executive Order, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who have valid visas will not be affected by this Executive Order. No visas will be revoked solely based on this Executive Order.

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

2/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17Q-c&vA:-P0r0ot1ec3tin5g-tJheLNRationDFroomcuFmoreeignn tTe6rr8or-is2t EntFryilTeodTh0e 3Un/1ite3d/S1ta7tes |PHoamgeelan9d 8Secoufrit1y 60
Q4. I am presently in the United States in possession of a valid single entry visa but I am a national of one of the six impacted countries. Can I travel abroad and return to the United States?

Regardless of the Executive Order, your visa is not valid for multiple entries into the Unites States. While the Executive Order does not apply to those within the United States and your travel abroad is not limited, a valid visa or other document permitting you to travel to and seek admission to the United States is still required for any subsequent entry to the United States.

Q5. I am presently in the United States in possession of a valid multiple entry visa but am a national of one of the six affected countries, can I travel abroad and return to the United States?

Yes. Individuals within the United States with valid multiple entry

visas on the effective date of the order are eligible for travel to

and from the United States, provided the visa remains valid and

the traveler is otherwise admissible. All foreign nationals

traveling with a visa must satisfy all admissibility requirements

for entry. Additional information on applying for admission to

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

3/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17Q-c&vA:-P0r0ot1ec3tin5g-tJheLNRationDFroomcuFmoreeignn tTe6rr8or-is2t EntFryilTeodTh0e 3Un/1ite3d/S1ta7tes |PHoamgeelan9d 9Secoufrit1y 60 the United States is available on CBP.gov.
(https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/applying-admission-unitedstates)
Q6. I am from one of the six countries, currently in the United States in possession of a valid visa and have planned overseas travel. My visa will expire while I am overseas, can I return to the United States?
Travelers must have a valid visa to travel to the United States, regardless of the Executive Order. Travelers who do not have a valid visa due to its expiration while abroad must obtain a new valid visa prior to returning to the United States.
Q7. Will the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) be revoking the visas of persons ineligible to travel under the revised Executive Order?
Visas will not be revoked solely as a result of the Executive Order. The Department of State has broad authority under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to revoke visas.

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

4/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S0ecuorfity160
Q8. What is the process for overseas travelers affected by the Executive Order to request a waiver?

Waivers for overseas travelers without a valid U.S. visa will be adjudicated by the Department of State in conjunction with a visa application.

Q9. How are returning refugees and asylees affected by the Executive Order?

Returning refugees and asylees, i.e., individuals who have already been granted asylum or refugee status in the United States, are explicitly excepted from this Executive Order. As such, they may continue to travel consistent with existing requirements.

Q10. Are first-time arrival refugees with valid /travel documents allowed to travel to the United States?

Yes, but only refugees, regardless of nationality, whose travel was already formally scheduled by the Department of State, are permitted to travel to the United States and seek admission. The Department of State will have additional information.

Q11. Will unaccompanied minors within the scope of the Executive

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

5/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S1ecuorfity160
Order be denied boarding and or denied entry into the United States?
The Executive Order applies to those who do not have valid visas. Any individuals, including children, who seek entry to the United States must have a valid visa (or other approved travel document) before travel to the United States. The Secretary of State may issue a waiver on a case-by-case basis when in the national interest of the United States. With such a waiver, a visa may be issued.
Q12. Is DHS complying with all court orders?
DHS is complying, and will continue to comply, with all court orders in effect.
Q13. When will the Executive Order be implemented?
The Executive Order is effective at 12:01 A.M., Eastern Standard Time, on March 16, 2017.
Q14. Will the Executive Order impact Trusted Traveler Program membership?
No. Currently, CBP does not have reciprocal agreements for a Trusted Traveler Program with any of the countries designated in the Executive Order.

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

6/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S2ecuorfity160
Q15. When will CBP issue guidance to both the field and airlines regarding the Executive Order?

CBP will issue guidance and contact stakeholders to ensure timely implementation consistent with the terms of the Executive Order.

Q16. Will first-time arrivals with valid immigrant visas be allowed to travel to the U.S.?

Yes. Individuals holding valid visas on the effective date of the Executive Order or on January 27, 2017 prior to 5:00 PM do not fall within the scope of the Order.

Q17. Does this affect travelers at all ports of entry?

Yes, this Executive Order applies to travelers who are applying for entry into the United States at any port of entry—air, land, or sea —and includes preclearance locations.

Q18. What does granting a waiver to the Executive Order mean? How are waivers applied to individual cases?

Per the Executive Order, the Departments of Homeland Security

and State can review individual cases and grant waivers on a

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

7/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S3ecuorfity160 case-by-case basis if a foreign national demonstrates that his or her entry into the United States is in the national interest, will not pose a threat to national security, and that denying entry during the suspension period will cause undue hardship.

Q19. Does “from one of the six countries” mean citizen, national, or born in?

The Executive Order applies to both nationals and citizens of the six countries.

Q20. How does the lawsuit/stay affect DHS operations in implementing this Executive Order?

Questions regarding the application of specific federal court orders should be directed to the Department of Justice.

Q21. Will nationals of the six countries with valid green cards (lawful permanent residents of the United States) be allowed to return to the United States?

Per the Executive Order, the suspension of entry does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Q22. Can a dual national who

holds nationality with one of the EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

8/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S4ecuorfity160
six designated countries traveling with a passport from an unrestricted country travel to the United States?

The Executive Order exempts from its scope any dual national of one of the six countries when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a different non-designated country.

Q23. Can a dual national who holds nationality with one of the six designated countries and is currently overseas, apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States?

Please contact the Department of State for information about how the Executive Order applies to visa applicants.

Q24. Are international students, exchange visitors, and their dependents from the six countries (such as F, M, or J visa holders) included in the Executive Order? What kind of guidance is being given to

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Seattle, WA 98104

9/16

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S5ecuorfity160
foreign students from these countries legally in the United States?

The Executive Order does not apply to individuals who are within the United States on the effective date of the Order or to those individuals who hold a valid visa. Visas which were provisionally revoked solely as a result of the enforcement of Executive Order 13769 are valid for purposes of administering this Executive Order. Individuals holding valid F, M, or J visas may continue to travel to the United States on those visas if they are otherwise valid.
Please contact the State Department for information about how the Executive Order applies to visa applicants.

Q25. What happens to international students, exchange visitors or their dependents from the six countries, such as F, M or J visa holders if their visa expires while the Executive Order is in place and they have to depart the country?

The Executive Order does not affect F, M, or J visa holders if they

currently have a valid visa on the effective date or held a valid

visa on January 27, 2017 prior to the issuance of the Executive

Order. With that said, travelers must have a valid visa to travel to

the United States, regardless of the Executive Order. Travelers

whose visa expires after the effective date of the Executive Order

EXH. KK TO MACmLEuOsDt-BoAbLtLaDiEnCa. new, valid visa to r1e0 turn to theNUOnRiTtHeWdESSTtaIMteMsIG.RANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

10/16

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S6ecuorfity160
Q26. Can U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continue refugee interviews?
The Departments of Homeland Security and State will conduct interviews as appropriate and consistent with the Executive Order. However, the Executive Order suspends decisions on applications for refugee status, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine, on a caseby-case basis, that the entry of an individual as a refugee is in the national interest and would not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.
Q27. Can the exception for refugee admission be used for Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (Form I-730) cases where a family member is requesting a beneficiary follow to join?
No. Individuals who already have valid visas or travel documents that permit them to travel to the United States are exempt from the Executive Order. To the extent that an individual does not yet have such documents, please contact the Department of State.
Q28. Does the Executive Order apply to those currently being

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

11/16

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S7ecuorfity160
adjudicated for naturalization or adjustment of status?

USCIS will continue to adjudicate Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400) and Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) and grant citizenship consistent with existing practices.

Q29. Will landed immigrants of Canada affected by the Executive Order be eligible for entry to the United States?

Landed immigrants of Canada who hold passports from one of the six countries are eligible to apply for a visa, and coordinate a waiver, at a location within Canada.

Q30. Has CBP issued clear guidance to CBP officers at ports of entry regarding the Executive Order?

CBP has and will continue to issue any needed guidance to the field with respect to this Executive Order.

Q31. What coordination is being done between CBP and the carriers?

CBP has been and will remain in continuous communication with

the airlines through CBP regional carrier liaisons. In addition, CBP

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

12

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

12/16

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S8ecuorfity160 will hold executive level calls with airlines in order to provide guidance, answer questions, and address concerns.

Q32. What additional screening will nationals of restricted countries (as well as any visa applications) undergo as a result of the Executive Order?

In making admission and visa eligibility determinations, DHS and DOS will continue to apply all appropriate security vetting procedures.

Q33. Why is a temporary suspension warranted?

The Executive Order signed on March 6, 2017, allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals. The Executive Order protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. Protecting the American people is the highest priority of our Government and this Department.

Congress and the Obama Administration designated these six

countries as countries of concern due to the national security

risks associated with their instability and the prevalence of

terrorist fighters in their territories.The conditions in the six

designated countries present a recognized threat, warranting

additional scrutiny of their nationals seeking to travel to and

enter the United States. In order to ensure that the U.S.

Government can conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis

of the national security risks, the Executive Order imposes a 90-

day suspension on entry to the United States of nationals of

those countries.

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

13

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

13/16

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd0S9ecuorfity160 Based on commitments from the Government of Iraq, the suspension of entry in this Executive Order will not apply to nationals of Iraq. Iraq has taken steps to increase their cooperation with the United States in the vetting of Iraqi nationals and as such it was determined that a temporary suspension is not warranted.
DHS will faithfully execute the immigration laws and the President’s Executive Order, and will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.

Q34. Why is a suspension of the refugee program warranted?

Some of those who have entered the United States as refugees have also proved to be threats to our national security. For example, in October 2014, an individual admitted to the United States as a refugee from Somalia, and who later became a naturalized U.S. citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in connection with a plot to set off a bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that approximately 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations.

Q35. How were the six countries designated in the Executive Order selected?

The six countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen,

had already been identified as presenting concerns about

terrorism and travel to the United States.Specifically, the

suspension applies to countries referred to in, or designated

under—except Iraq—section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. §

1187(a)(12).In that provision Congress restricted use of the Visa

EXH. KK TO MACWLEaOivDe-BrAPLLroDEgCra. m by dual nationa1ls4 of, and alieNnOsRTrHeWceEnSTtlIyMMpIrGeRsAeNnTtRIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

14/16

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd1S0ecuorfity160 in, (A) Syria and Iraq, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.In 2016, the former Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern regarding aliens recently present in those countries.
For the purposes of this Executive Order, although Iraq has been previously identified, based on commitments from the Government of Iraq, the suspension of entry in this Executive Order will not apply to nationals of Iraq. However, those who are dual nationals of Iraq and aliens recently present in Iraq continue to have restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program.
On the basis of negotiations that have taken place between the Government of Iraq and the U.S. Department of State in the last month, Iraq will increase cooperation with the U.S. Government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.As such it was determined that a temporary suspension with respect to nationals of Iraq is not warranted at this time.

Q36. Why was Iraq treated differently in this Executive Order?

The close cooperative relationship between the United States

and the democratically-elected Iraqi government, the strong U.S.

diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of U.S. forces

in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combat ISIS justify different

treatment.In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have

fought to regain more than half of the territory previously

dominated by ISIS have earned special status.In addition, since

Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has

expressly undertaken steps to provide additional information

EXH. KK TO MACaLbEoOuD-tBiAtLsLcDiEtCiz. ens for purposes of15our immigraNtOioRTnHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

15/16

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-Qc&vA-:0P0ro1te3ct5ing-JthLeRNatioDn ForocmuFmoreeingntT6er8ro-r2ist EnFtriyleTodT0he3U/n1it3ed/1St7ates P| Haomgeela1nd1S1ecuorfity160 decisions.Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to include Iraq in the temporary suspension applicable to the other six countries, but visa applications and applications for admission to the United States by Iraqi nationals will be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if they have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations.
Q37. Are Iraqi nationals subject to the Executive Order? Will they require a waiver to travel to the United States?
This Executive Order does not presently suspend the entry of nationals of Iraq. However, all travelers must have a valid travel document in order to travel to the United States. Admissibility will be determined by a CBP officer upon arrival at a Port of Entry. Please contact the Department of State for information related to visa eligibility and application.
Topics: Border Security (/topics/border-security) , Homeland Security Enterprise (/topics/homeland-security-enterprise) , Immigration Enforcement (/topics/immigration-
enforcement)
Keywords: immigration (/keywords/immigration) , immigration enforcement
(/keywords/immigration-enforcement)
Last Published Date: March 6, 2017

EXH. KK TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

16

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

16/16

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 112 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017
Home

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRIran kDeeopcs ubamn oennUtS 6vis8it-o2rs inFreislpeodnse0t3o T/1ru3m/p1o7rder Page 113 of 160
Mail Flickr Tumblr News Sports Finance Celebrity Answers Groups Mobile More

Search

Search

Sign in

Mail

News Home US World Politics Tech Science Odd News ABC News

Follow Us

Iran keeps ban on US visitors in response to Trump order
AFP March 7, 2017

Popular in the Community

Iran says it will continue its retaliatory measure of barring US visitors in response to President Donald Trump's updated travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries (AFP Photo/SPENCER PLATT) More

Tehran (AFP) ­ Iran said Tuesday it would continue its retaliatory measure of

barring US visitors in response to President Donald Trump's updated travel ban CBO: 14 million people would lose coverage

on predominantly Muslim countries.

next year under GOP health care plan

8726 messages

3% 71% 26%

"Our earlier counter-measure against Trump's previous order is still in place,"

said deputy foreign minister Majid Takht Ravanchi at a conference entitled

"What to do about Trump's America".

"There is no need for a new decision," he said, according to the ISNA news agency.

Iran's foreign ministry announced in January it would ban Americans from entering the country in response to Trump's "insulting" order restricting arrivals from Iran and six other Muslim states.

Keller Graduate School ® - Keller.edu
www.Keller.edu Sponsored

It called the decision "illegal, illogical and contrary to international rules".

The White House re-issued the ban on Monday ­­ this time excluding Iraq but still targeting Iranians ­­ following legal challenges.

Trump's ban was halted by a federal court in February, allowing an Iranian archery team into the US. Iran reciprocated by allowing entry to an American wrestling team for a competition.
Iranians have been the most affected by the ban since more than one million live, work and study in the United States.

History of the Stanley Cup
1 messages

EXH. LL TO MACLEOD-BALL DECV. iew Reactions (23)

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-keeps-ban-us-visitors-response-trump-order-104300662.html

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/2

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLRIran kDeeopcs ubamn oennUtS 6vis8it-o2rs inFreislpeodnse0t3o T/1ru3m/p1o7rder Page 114 of 160

Home Mail Flickr Tumblr News Sports Finance Celebrity Answers Groups Mobile More

Search

Sign in to post a message.

Search

Sign in

Mail

News Home US World Politics Tech Science Odd News ABC News

Follow Us

EXH. LL TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-keeps-ban-us-visitors-response-trump-order-104300662.html

Seattle, WA 98104

2/2

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 115 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135O-JnlLinRe PetiDtioon tcouBman eTrnumt p6I8s N-2ow thFeiUleKd’s M0o3st/1Po3p/u1la7r | WPIRaEDge 116 of 160

I I LAPOW KY U IN

12.10.15 3:03 PM

Đǿňǻŀđ Țřųmp mǻỳ bě ģǻįňįňģ șųppǿřț ǻț ħǿmě ǻfțěř přǿpǿșįňģ țħǻț țħě čǿųňțřỳ bǻň Mųșŀįm pěǿpŀě fřǿm țřǻvěŀįňģ țǿ țħě ŲȘ. Bųț ǻčřǿșș țħě pǿňđ, ǻ pěțįțįǿň țǿ bǻň Đǿňǻŀđ Țřųmp fřǿm țřǻvěŀįňģ țǿ țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm ħǻș jųșț běčǿmě țħě mǿșț pǿpųŀǻř pěțįțįǿň ǿň țħě ģǿvěřňměňț’ș ẅěbșįțě.

Pǿșțěđ jųșț țẅǿ đǻỳș ǻģǿ, țħě pěțįțįǿň ħǻș ǻŀřěǻđỳ řěǻčħěđ 458,230 șįģňǻțųřěș ǻňđ čǿųňțįňģ. Ǻț țħě țįmě țħįș șțǿřỳ ẅǻș ẅřįțțěň, įț ħǻđ ģǻřňěřěđ 7,861 șįģňǻțųřěș įň țħě ŀǻșț ħǿųř ǻŀǿňě. Țħǻț pųțș țħě Đǿňǻŀđ pěțįțįǿň ǻħěǻđ ǿf ǻ Șěpțěmběř pěțįțįǿň ųřģįňģ țħě ģǿvěřňměňț țǿ ǻččěpț mǿřě ǻșỳŀųm șěěķěřș ǻňđ įňčřěǻșě șųppǿřț fǿř řěfųģěě mįģřǻňțș įň țħě ŲĶ, ẅħįčħ ŀěđ țǿ Pǻřŀįǻměňț’ș ǻňňǿųňčěměňț țħǻț țħě čǿųňțřỳ ẅǿųŀđ řěșěțțŀě 20,000 Șỳřįǻň řěfųģěěș.

Ňǿț țħǻț Ģřěǻț Břįțǻįň đǿěșň’ț ħǻvě įțș ǿẅň įmmįģřǻțįǿň ǿppǿňěňțș. İň țħįřđ pŀǻčě įș ǻ pěțįțįǿň țǿ đǿ jųșț țħě ǿppǿșįțě, ǻșķįňģ țħě ģǿvěřňměňț țǿ șħųț đǿẅň ǻŀŀ įmmįģřǻțįǿň čǿmpŀěțěŀỳ, ǻň įđěǻ țħǻț ħǻș ǻŀřěǻđỳ běěň șțřųčķ đǿẅň bỳ Pǻřŀįǻměňț.

Běčǻųșě țħě Țřųmp pěțįțįǿň ħǻș ģǿțțěň mǿřě țħǻň 100,000 șįģňǻțųřěș, țħě ģǿvěřňměňț ẅįŀŀ ňǿẅ čǿňșįđěř đěbǻțįňģ țħě įșșųě įň Pǻřŀįǻměňț. Ẅħįŀě bǻňňįňģ Țřųmp ǿųțřįģħț mǻỳ șěěm ǿųțŀǻňđįșħ įň țħě ŲȘ (țħǿųģħ ňǿț ňěǻřŀỳ ǻș ǿųțŀǻňđįșħ ǻș bǻňňįňģ ǻň ěňțįřě fǻįțħ ģřǿųp fřǿm ěňțěřįňģ ǻ čǿųňțřỳ ẅħǿșě Čǿňșțįțųțįǿň přǿțěčțș fřěěđǿm ǿf řěŀįģįǿň … jųșț șǻỳįň’) țħěřě įș přěčěđěňț fǿř țħįș ķįňđ ǿf țħįňģ įň țħě ŲĶ.

Țħě čǿųňțřỳ ħǻș bǻňňěđ pěǿpŀě fǿř “ųňǻččěpțǻbŀě běħǻvįǿųř” įň țħě pǻșț, įňčŀųđįňģ čěŀěbřįțįěș ŀįķě Mǻřțħǻ Șțěẅǻřț, Čħřįș Břǿẅň, ǻňđ Mįķě Țỳșǿň. Țħě ŲĶ ħǻș ǻŀșǿ bǻňňěđ přǿmǿțěřș ǿf ħǻțě șpěěčħ, ŀįķě Șțěpħěň Đǿňǻŀđ Bŀǻčķ, ǻ Ķų Ķŀųx Ķŀǻňșmǻň ǻňđ fǿųňđěř ǿf țħě ẅħįțě șųpřěmǻčįșț įňțěřňěț ģřǿųp Șțǿřmfřǿňț, ẅħįčħ, įňčįđěňțǻŀŀỳ, ħǻș ħǻđ țǿ ųpģřǻđě įțș șěřvěřș țħǻňķș țǿ țħě țřǻffįč bǿǿșț įț’ș ģěțțįňģ fřǿm Țřųmp-řěŀǻțěđ čǿňțěňț.

Țħě ŲĶ ģǿvěřňměňț, fǿř įțș pǻřț, įș ǻŀřěǻđỳ șįģňǻŀįňģ țħǻț țħě Țřųmp bǻň ẅǿň’ț șțįčķ.

Ěįțħěř ẅǻỳ, įț șěěmș Țřųmp įș, ǻș ěvěř, ųňđěțěřřěđ. Țħǿųģħ ẅě ħǻvě țǿ șǻỳ įț’ș fǻįřŀỳ đįșčǿňčěřțįňģ țǿ șěě ǻ přěșįđěňțįǻŀ čǻňđįđǻțě mǻķįňģ įňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ ěňěmįěș běfǿřě ħě’ș ěvěň ģǿțțěň țħě ňǿmįňǻțįǿň—ěșpěčįǻŀŀỳ ẅħěň țħǻț ěňěmỳ įș ǻ ŀǿňģ țįmě ǻŀŀỳ.

EXH. MM TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.wired.com/2015/12/online-petition-to-ban-trump-is-now-the-uks-most-popular/

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

1/127

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135O-JnlLinRe PetiDtioon tcouBman eTrnumt p6I8s N-2ow thFeiUleKd’s M0o3st/1Po3p/u1la7r | WPIRaEDge 117 of 160

Țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm įș țřỳįňģ ħǻřđ țǿ đįșģųįșě țħěįř mǻșșįvě Mųșŀįm přǿbŀěm. Ěvěřỳbǿđỳ įș ẅįșě

țǿ ẅħǻț įș ħǻppěňįňģ, věřỳ șǻđ! Bě ħǿňěșț.

— Đǿňǻŀđ J. Țřųmp (@řěǻŀĐǿňǻŀđȚřųmp) Đěčěmběř 10, 2015

MILY DR YFU

CULTUR 09.14.16 1:34 PM

Ǻ ħǻșħțǻģ. (Țħįș pǿșț ẅǻș įňșpįřěđ bỳ țħě Ňěẅ Ỳǿřķ Țįměș.)

I I LAPOW KY U IN

05.10.16 8:35 AM

EXH. MM TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

https://www.wired.com/2015/12/online-petition-to-ban-trump-is-now-the-uks-most-popular/

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

2/127

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 118 of 160
EXHIBIT

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e119 of 1760

Response to Emergency Motion
Exhibit A

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e220 of 1760

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-35105

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs-Appellees, )

) JOINT DECLARATION OF

vs.

) MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT,

) AVRIL D. HAINES

) MICHAEL V. HAYDEN

) JOHN F. KERRY

) JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the

) LISA O. MONACO

United States, et al.,

) MICHAEL J. MORELL

) JANET A. NAPOLITANO

Defendants-Appellants. ) LEON E. PANETTA

) SUSAN E. RICE

)

)

)

We, Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice declare as follows:
1. We are former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government:
a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. A refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and has been a member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 2009 and the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has received assessments of threats facing the United States.
b. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2015, and as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015 to January 20, 2017.
c. Michael V. Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009.
d. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017.

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e231 of 1760
e. John E. McLaughlin served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2000-2004 and Acting Director of CIA in 2004. His duties included briefing President-elect Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.
f. Lisa O. Monaco served as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to January 20, 2017.
g. Michael J. Morell served as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2011 and from 2012 to 2013, Deputy Director from 2010 to 2013, and as a career official of the CIA from 1980. His duties included briefing President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, and briefing President Barack Obama regarding the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden.
h. Janet A. Napolitano served as Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013.
i. Leon E. Panetta served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2009-11 and as Secretary of Defense from 2011-13.
j. Susan E. Rice served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 2009-13 and as National Security Advisor from 2013 to January 20, 2017.
2. We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats that the United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have all held the highest security clearances. A number of us have worked at senior levels in administrations of both political parties. Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”).
3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e242 of 1760

4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized vetting system developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective.
5. In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States in many respects:
a. The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field. Every day, American soldiers work and fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who put their lives on the line to protect Americans. For example, allies who would be barred by the Order work alongside our men and women in Iraq fighting against ISIL. To the extent that the Order bans travel by individuals cooperating against ISIL, we risk placing our military efforts at risk by sending an insulting message to those citizens and all Muslims.
b. The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining the necessary information sharing and collaboration in intelligence, law enforcement, military, and diplomatic channels to address the threat posed by terrorist groups such as ISIL. The international criticism of the Order has been intense, and it has alienated U.S. allies. It will strain our relationships with partner countries in Europe and the Middle East, on whom we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation, undermining years of effort to bring them closer. By alienating these partners, we could lose access to the intelligence and resources necessary to fight the root causes of terror or disrupt attacks launched from abroad, before an attack occurs within our borders.
c. The Order will endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who have risked much or all to keep Americans safe – and whom our officers had promised always to protect with the full might of our government and our people.
d. Left in place, the Executive Order will likely feed the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with Islam. As government officials, we took every step we could to counter violent extremism. Because of the Order’s disparate impact against Muslim travelers and immigrants, it feeds ISIL’s narrative and sends the wrong message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the world: that

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e253 of 1760

the U.S. government is at war with them based on their religion. The Order may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a recruiting tool and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is engaged in a religious war. e. The Order will disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating Muslim-American communities in the United States, it will harm our efforts to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino and Orlando. f. The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact. When the Order issued, those disrupted included women and children who had been victimized by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of travelers today face deep uncertainty about whether they may travel to or from the United States: for medical treatment, study or scholarly exchange, funerals or other pressing family reasons. While the Order allows for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to agree to admit travelers from these countries on a case-by-case basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of affected individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel. g. The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and residents. The Order will affect many foreign travelers, particularly students, who annually inject hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well over a million U.S. jobs. Since the Order issued, affected companies have noted its adverse impacts on many strategic economic sectors, including defense, technology, medicine, culture and others.
6. As a national security measure, the Order is unnecessary. National security-based immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on (1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed, or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has developed a rigorous system of security vetting, leveraging the full capabilities of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. This vetting is applied to travelers not once, but multiple times. Refugees receive the most thorough vetting of any traveler to the United States, taking on the average more than a year. Successive administrations have continually worked to improve this vetting through robust informationsharing and data integration to identify potential terrorists without resorting to a blanket ban on all aliens and refugees. Because various threat streams are constantly mutating, as government officials, we sought continually to improve that vetting, as was done in response to particular threats identified by U.S. intelligence in 2011 and 2015. Placing additional restrictions on individuals from certain countries in the visa waiver program –as has been done on occasion in the past – merely allows for more individualized vettings before individuals with particular passports are permitted to travel to the United States.
7. In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained. The “considered judgment” of the President in the prior cases where courts have

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e264 of 1760
deferred was based upon administrative records showing that the President’s decision rested on cleared views from expert agencies with broad experience on the matters presented to him. Here, there is little evidence that the Order underwent a thorough interagency legal and policy processes designed to address current terrorist threats, which would ordinarily include a review by the career professionals charged with implementing and carrying out the Order, an interagency legal review, and a careful policy analysis by Deputies and Principals (at the cabinet level) before policy recommendations are submitted to the President. We know of no interagency process underway before January 20, 2017 to change current vetting procedures, and the repeated need for the Administration to clarify confusion after the Order issued suggest that that Order received little, if any advance scrutiny by the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security or the Intelligence Community. Nor have we seen any evidence that the Order resulted from experienced intelligence and security professionals recommending changes in response to identified threats.
8. The Order is of unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a President has invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for such a broad class of people. Even after 9/11, the U.S. Government did not invoke the provisions of law cited by the Administration to broadly bar entrants based on nationality, national origin, or religious affiliation. In past cases, suspensions were limited to particular individuals or subclasses of nationals who posed a specific, articulable threat based on their known actions and affiliations. In adopting this Order, the Administration alleges no specific derogatory factual information about any particular recipient of a visa or green card or any vetting step omitted by current procedures.
9. Maintaining the district court’s temporary restraining order while the underlying legal issues are being adjudicated would not jeopardize national security. It would simply preserve the status quo ante, still requiring that individuals be subjected to all the rigorous legal vetting processes that are currently in place. Reinstating the Executive Order would wreak havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values. Ours is a nation of immigrants, committed to the faith that we are all equal under the law and abhor discrimination, whether based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. As government officials, we sought diligently to protect our country, even while maintaining an immigration system free from intentional discrimination, that applies no religious tests, and that measures individuals by their merits, not stereotypes of their countries or groups. Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people are beneath the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we each took oaths to protect. Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a “Muslim Ban” as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

5

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e275 of 1760
10. For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional opinion, the January 27 Executive Order does not further – but instead harms – sound U.S. national security and foreign policy.
Respectfully submitted,
s/MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT* s/AVRIL D. HAINES s/MICHAEL V. HAYDEN s/JOHN F. KERRY s/JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN s/LISA O. MONACO s/MICHAEL J. MORELL s/JANET A. NAPOLITANO s/LEON E. PANETTA s/SUSAN E. RICE
*All original signatures are on file with Harold Hongju Koh, Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT. 06520-8215 203-432-4932
We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. [Individual signature pages follow]

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

6

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e286 of 1760

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCseas2e:1: 71-7c-v3-50100153,50-J2L/0R6/2D0o1c7u, mIDe:n1t06380-289F2i,leDdk0tE3n/1tr3y/:1278-2P,aPgaeg1e297 of 1760

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege12180ooff11670

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege12191ooff11670

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

LIOZ'KmnrqeCJo f,ep q,g slql CgJOlgXg

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege13102ooff11670

NITHJOY'ICW'g NIHO 73

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege13113ooff11670

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege13124ooff11670

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege13135ooff11670
EXECUTED this 5th day of February, 2017 __________/s/_________________ JANET A. NAPOLITANO

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege13146ooff11670

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

16

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

CaCsaes2e:1177--c3v5-010153, 50-2J/L0R6/20D1o7c,uImD:e1n0t 36082-2892F,ilDedkt0E3n/t1ry3:/1278-2P, aPgaege13157ooff11670
EXECUTED this 5th day of February, 2017 ________/s/___________________ SUSAN E. RICE

EXH. NN TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 136 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-S0ta0te1D3ep5t.-DJiLssRent CDabolecoun Tmruemnp’ts 6Ba8n-D2rawFs 1il,0e0d0 S0ig3na/t1ur3es/1- T7he NPeawgYoerk1T3im7esof 160

A MERICA S

https://nyti.ms/2jRZm93

JAN. 31, 2017

video.

EXH. OO TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-dept-dissent-cable-trump-immigration-order.html?_r=0

Seattle, WA 98104

1/4

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-S0ta0te1D3ep5t.-DJiLssRent CDabolecoun Tmruemnp’ts 6Ba8n-D2rawFs 1il,0e0d0 S0ig3na/t1ur3es/1- T7he NPeawgYoerk1T3im8esof 160

.” post.

EXH. OO TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-dept-dissent-cable-trump-immigration-order.html?_r=0

Seattle, WA 98104

2/4

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-S0ta0te1D3ep5t.-DJiLssRent CDabolecoun Tmruemnp’ts 6Ba8n-D2rawFs 1il,0e0d0 S0ig3na/t1ur3es/1- T7he NPeawgYoerk1T3im9esof 160

said.

concern.

EXH. OO TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-dept-dissent-cable-trump-immigration-order.html?_r=0

Seattle, WA 98104

3/4

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-S0ta0te1D3ep5t.-DJiLssRent CDabolecoun Tmruemnp’ts 6Ba8n-D2rawFs 1il,0e0d0 S0ig3na/t1ur3es/1- T7he NPeawgYoerk1T4im0esof 160

ers.
.”
Follow Jeffrey Gettleman on Twitter @gettleman .
A version of this article appears in print on February 1, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Dissent on Travel Ban Spreads From One Embassy to Another.
© 2017 The New York Times Company

EXH. OO TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC.

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-dept-dissent-cable-trump-immigration-order.html?_r=0

Seattle, WA 98104

4/4

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 141 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC42 of 160

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog

Exclusive: DHS intel doc contradicts case for Trump's travel ban, 3/2/17, 9:02 PM ET

TRMS Exclusive: DHS document undermines
Trump case for travel ban
03/02/17 09:15 PM—UPDATED 03/03/17 12:14 AM

The Rachel Maddow Show has obtained, exclusively, a Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment document. The document, from the Oﬃce of Intelligence and Analysis, makes the case that most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists are likely not radicalized when they come to the U.S., but rather become radicalized after living in the U.S. for a number of years.

The document follows another piece of research (pdf) from Homeland Security

that undercut President Trump’s rationale for a travel ban as a means of keeping

ECvXaisHoe. PNlePo.nT2O:t17Me-AcvxC-0Lt0Er1Oe3D5m--BJLAiRsLLtDsECo. ut.

On

Friday,

the

Asso1 ciated

Press

puNbOlRisTHhWeEdST

an analysis from IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC43 of 160

Homeland Security that said citizenship in any given country – including the seven countries listed in the executive order – is likely an unreliable indicator of whether someone poses a terrorist threat.

The new assessment, obtained by the Rachel Maddow Show and dated March 1, tracks 88 violent, foreign-born extremists in the United States. More than half of them had been in the U.S. more than 10 years before they were indicted or killed.

Homeland Security tonight has conﬁrmed the authenticity of the document. The department says production of it began in August 2016, and that it likely would have reached the White House. We have asked the White House for comment tonight. They have not responded.

Read the document below:

(Scribd pdf link here)

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC44 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC45 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

4

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC46 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC47 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC48 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC49 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC50 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC51 of 160

Explore: The MaddowBlog
Thursday's Mini-Report, 3.2.17
EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Team Trump's Russian communications come...

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00T1R3M5S-EJxLcluRsive:DDoHScudomcumenentt u6n8de-r2mineFs Tilreumdp0ca3s/e1fo3r /t1ra7vel baPna| MgSeN1BC52 of 160

EXH. PP TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 153 of 160
EXHIBIT

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 154 of 160

JA NUA RY 25, 2017 3:31PM

By

Tomorrow, President Trump is expected to sign an executive order enacting a 30­day suspension of all visas for nationals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.

Many other foreigners have been convicted of terrorism­related offenses that did not include planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. One list released by Senator Jeff Sessions (R­AL) details 580 terror­related convictions since 9/11. This incomplete list probably influenced which countries are temporarily banned, and likely provided justification for another section of Trump’s executive order, which directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to release all information on foreign­born terrorists going forward, and requires additional DHS reports to study foreign­born terrorism.

EXH. QQ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

I exhCauassteiv2e:l1y7e-vcavl-u0a0t1e3d5S-eJnLRatorDSoecsusmioenns’t l6is8t-2of cFoinlevdic0ti3o/n1s3/b1a7sedPaognep1u5b5licolyf 160 available data and discovered some startling details.

First, 241 of the convictions (42 percent) were not for terrorism offenses. Senator Sessions puffed his numbers by including “terrorism­related convictions,” a nebulous category that includes investigations that begin due to a terrorism tip but then end in non­terrorism convictions. My favorite examples of this are the convictions of Nasser Abuali, Hussein Abuali, and Rabi Ahmed. An informant told the FBI that the trio tried to purchase a rocket­propelled grenade launcher, but the FBI found no evidence supporting the accusation. The three individuals were instead convicted of receiving two truckloads of stolen cereal. That is a crime but it is not terrorism.

Second, only 40 of the 580 convictions (6.9 percent) were for foreigners planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Seeking to join a foreign terrorist group overseas, material support for a foreign terrorist, and seeking to commit an act of terror on foreign soil account for 180 of the 580 convictions (31 percent). Terrorism on foreign soil is a crime, should be a crime, and those convicted of these offenses should be punished severely but the government cannot claim that these convictions made America safe again because these folks were not targeting U.S. soil.

Third, 92 of the 580 convictions (16 percent) were for U.S. born citizens. No change in immigration law, visa limitations, or more rigorous security checks would have stopped them.

The executive order includes national security exemptions to be made on a case­by­ case basis. The President reserves the option to ban the entry of nationals from additional countries in the future based on a national security risk report written by DHS. Furthermore, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security can recommend visa bans for nationals from additional countries at any time.

In addition to the visa restrictions above, Trump’s executive order further cuts the

refugee program to 50,000 annually, indefinitely blocks all refugees from Syria, and

suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days. This is a response to a phantom

menace. From 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 refugees have been convicted of attempting

or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in

attacks committed by refugees—all in the 1970s. Zero Americans have been killed by

EXH. QQ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

SyriaCnarseefu2g:e1e7s-cinv-a00te1r3r5o-rJisLtRattaDcokcounmUen.St .6s8o-i2l. TFhileedan0n3u/1a3l /c1h7anPceaogfea1n5A6mofe1ri6c0an dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion. The other 17 convictions have mainly been for aiding or attempting to join foreign terrorists. President Trump tweeted earlier this week that executive orders were intended to improve national security by reducing the terrorist threat. However, a rational evaluation of national security threats is not the basis for Trump’s orders, as the risk is fairly small but the cost is great. The measures taken here will have virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security.
Topics: International Economics, Development & Immigration Tags: Trump, executive order, terrorism, immigration, immigrants, ban, Muslim, refugees
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐ ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

EXH. QQ TO MACLEOD-BALL DEC. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 68-2 Filed 03/13/17 Page 157 of 160
EXHIBIT

3/13/2017

Case 2:17T-rcavve-l 0ba0n:1T3he5re-JarLeR'13 orD14o' ccouunmtrieesnthta6t h8av-e2queFstiiolenadble0v3et/ti1ng3p/r1oc7edurPesa- gCeNN1P5ol8iticos.cfo1m60

Kelly: There are '13 or 14' more countries with questionable vetting procedures

By Daniella Diaz, CNN @ Updated 2:09 AM ET, Tue March 7, 2017



0:00 / 0:14

<

Kelly says more countries have vetting issues 01:08

Story highlights
Trump signed a new executive order that bans immigration from six Muslim-majority countries

Washington (CNN) — Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said that apart from the six countries listed on Monday's travel ban, there are "13 or 14" other countries that also have questionable vetting procedures.
Kelly didn't name any of the additional countries the administration is concerned about and acknowledged he doesn't expect the list of countries subject to the travel ban will grow.

Kelly says the ban is not a Muslim

"There will probably be other countries we will look at," he told

ban

CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "I don't believe the list will be expanded, but there are countries out there that we

will ask, like Iraq has done ... to cooperate with us better, to get

 By using this site, you agree tuos tthheeinPforrmivaatiocnywePnoeleidctyo saanfedguard the country."

He not

caollnotEifnXtuTHhe.eeRdmRr: m"MTTOhusMeslAriemoC'LsfEcaOoSDun-enuBtmArrLivebLseiD,crEnCoeo.ft.tahlel mof

out there, I don't want to them in the Mid1dle East,

speculate. There's probably 13 or 14 countries, thatNhOaRvTeHWquEeSTstIiMoMnIaGbRlAeNvTeRttIiGnHgTSprPoRcOeJdEuCrTes we

http://www.cnnC.caosme /N20o1. 72/:0137/0-c6v/p-0ol0it1ic3s5/j-oJhLnR-kelly-travel-ban-muslim-countriecsa/ n rely on. And if we overlay addit6i1o5nSaelcvSoenedatttAtilnev,geW.,pSArtoe9.8c41e00d04 ures, 1/3

206-957-8611

3/13n/2o0t17all of themCMausselim2:1co7Tu-rcanvvter-lie0bas0n,:1nT3hoe5tre-aJallrLeoR'f13thoreD1m4o' ccinouunmthtrieeesnMthtaid6t hd8alv-ee2EquaeFssttiio,lentahdbale0tvh3eta/ti1nvge3p/qr1ouc7eedsurtPeiosan- gaCbeNlNe1P5vole9ititctosin.cfgo1mp6r0ocedures we

can rely on. And if we overlay additional vetting procedures,

Revised US travel ban

the chances are these countries will be minimum citizens from those countries that visit our country."

Trump signs new travel ban How this ban is di㴂erent Muslims in Congress blast new order Will this impact the court cases? Travel ban: Read the full executive order Instant backlash to new travel ban This time around, ban o㴂ers wiggle room

President Donald Trump on Monday signed a new executive order that bans immigration from six Muslim-majority countries, dropping Iraq from January's previous order and reinstates a temporary blanket ban on all refugees. Iraq was removed from a revised version of an executive order banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries after intensive lobbying from the Iraqi government at the highest levels, a senior US o〃cial told CNN Monday.
President Donald Trump signs new travel ban, exempts Iraq
The new measures will block citizens of Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from obtaining visas for at least 90 days.
The new ban, which will be implemented March 16, comes six weeks after Trump's original executive order caused chaos at airports nationwide before it was blocked by federal courts.
The ban removes language in the original order that indeﬁnitely banned Syrian refugees and called for prioritizing the admission of refugees who are religious minorities in their home countries.

Kelly told Blitzer that the ban is not a "Muslim ban," which is what it's being called by critics of the executive order.

H

"Three of the six (countries in the travel ban) now are designated as terrorism supporters," Kelly said. "We can't rely on those governments ... It's not a Muslim ban ... there are 51 overwhelmingly Muslim countries."

Related Video: Trump signs revised travel ban, Iraq is exempt 03:12

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and



EXTH.eRRrmTOsMAoCLfEOSD-eBArLvL iDcECe. .

2

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-travel-ban-muslim-countries/

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/3

206-957-8611

3/13/2017

Case 2:17T-rcavve-l 0ba0n:1T3he5re-JarLeR'13 orD14o' ccouunmtrieesnthta6t h8av-e2queFstiiolenadble0v3et/ti1ng3p/r1oc7edurPesa- gCeNN1P6ol0iticos.cfo1m60

New Utah bigamy law passes Senate after 'Sister Wives' suit
Challengers race to block new travel ban before it goes into e㴂ect
Glenn Greenwald: CIA and FBI probably intervened in election
5 memorable moments from Kellyanne Conway on "New Day"

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and



EXTH.eRRrmTOsMAoCLfEOSD-eBArLvL iDcECe. .

3

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-travel-ban-muslim-countries/

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/3

206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 7

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10

11 JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

14 States, et al.,

MAY BE AWARDED TO AN

Defendants.

UNCERTIFIED CLASS

15

16

17

18

INTRODUCTION

19

In their putative class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order, as

20 well as preliminary injunctive relief, prohibiting enforcement of Section 3(c) of the first Executive

21 Order and Sections 1(f), 2, and 3 of the second Executive Order (“Order”).1 Plaintiffs’ Amended

22

23 1 Executive Order 13,769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the

United States,” signed on Jan. 27, 2017. See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017). 24 1 Executive Order No. 13,780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the

25

United States,” signed on Mar. 6, 2017. See 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017).

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 1

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 7

Complaint, ECF No. 52 (“Am. Compl.”) at ¶ 5. During a March 13, 2017, telephonic conference, 1 2 the Court directed the parties to submit briefs on the issue of whether injunctive relief is available 3 to a non-certified class. As set forth below, Defendants respectfully submit that it is not.

4

Absent class certification, any preliminary injunctive relief should be directed only to the

5 10 named plaintiffs. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) provides that, “[a]t an early practicable

6 time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order

7 whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). “It is the actual
8 certification of the action as a class action under 23(c) and (a) which alone gives birth to ‘the class
9 as a jurisprudential entity,’ changes the action from a mere individual suit with class allegations
10 into a true class action qualifying under 23(a), and provides that sharp line of demarcation between
11 an individual action seeking to become a class action and an actual class action.” Shelton v. Pargo,
12 Inc., 582 F.2d 1298, 1304 (4th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). Thus, “the procedural formalities of
13 certification are important even if the case appears to be headed for settlement rather than
14
15 litigation.” In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768,
16 785 (3d Cir. 1995). Merely treating a case as a class action, but failing to certify the action as a

17 class action as provided by Rule 23, is insufficient. “Without such certification and identification

18 of the class, the action is not properly a class action.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 310

19 n.1 (1976).

20

For these reasons, courts have rightly rejected claims for class-wide preliminary injunctive

21 relief before determining the class was certified. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that “in

22 the absence of class certification, [a] preliminary injunction may properly cover only the named
23 plaintiffs.” Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (9th Cir. 1984)
24 (order granting preliminary injunction was too broad; on remand, “if the district court fails to
25

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 2

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 7

certify a class of plaintiffs, it must limit the injunction to apply to the named plaintiffs only”); see 1 2 also Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-30 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that, in the absence of 3 class certification, preliminary injunctive relief may cover only the named plaintiffs); Los Angeles 4 Haven Hospice v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d 644, at 664-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (nationwide injunction which

5 would bar the defendant from enforcing a hospice cap regulation against individuals other than the

6 named plaintiff was too broad); Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1501-

7 02 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that “injunctive relief generally should be limited to apply only to
8 named plaintiffs where there is no class certification”)2; Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC,
9 No. 11-cv-1008, 2011 WL 11712610, *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011) (concluding that court could
10 not grant class-wide relief prior to deciding whether to certify the class). “This limitation is
11 consistent with the traditional rule that injunctive relief should be narrowly tailored to remedy the
12 specific harms shown by plaintiffs, ‘rather than to enjoin all possible breaches of the law.’”
13 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 728 n.1 (citation omitted); see also Korab v. McManaman, 805 F. Supp. 2d
14
15 1027, 1039-40 (D. Haw. 2011) (broad injunction inappropriate without class certification where
16 court lacks “any idea as the true scope of the relief requested”).

17

18 2 In Easyriders, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s entry of a statewide permanent

injunction, upon summary judgment, that precluded the enforcement of a motorcycle helmet law

19 against all motorcyclists, instead of an injunction that merely restricted the law’s application to

the named plaintiffs. 92 F.3d at 1501-02. The Ninth Circuit did so, however, reasoning that “‘an 20 injunction is not necessarily made overbroad by extending benefit or protection to persons other

than prevailing parties in the lawsuit—even if it is not a class action—if such breadth is 21 necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.’” Id. (citing Bresgal v.

22

Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original)). That, of course, is not the case here, as Plaintiffs have not secured a permanent injunction on the merits and, so, are not

23 prevailing parties. See Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1169 (explaining that National Center and Zepeda apply in preliminary injunction context, yet the Bresgal court had “been called upon to rule on

24 the question of statutory interpretation”).

25

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 3

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 7

Moreover, given that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo 1 2 between the parties pending a resolution of a case on the merits, see U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC 3 Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010), issuing class-wide injunctive relief in this case
4 would be especially inappropriate. Plaintiffs have not shown that it is necessary to maintain the
5 status quo as to the specific interests of even the 10 named plaintiffs—let alone, practicable. Nor
6 can they. Chief among the barriers to plaintiffs’ claims is the lack of justiciability. The claims by
7 the named plaintiffs who are nonresident and unadmitted aliens are barred by the doctrine of
8 consular nonreviewability. See Defendants’ Opposition to Emergency Motion for Temporary 9
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction at 11. Meanwhile, any claims raised by the 10
petitioner plaintiffs within the country are unripe because no alien has been refused a visa, and the 11
Order contains waiver provisions that will provide an avenue of relief if the aliens are found 12
otherwise eligible for visas. Id. at 11-12. 13
Even if the named plaintiffs had presented justiciable claims, they purport to represent a 14 15 class presenting interests far broader than their own. The putative class includes anyone from a
16 designated country who has applied or will apply for an immigrant visa in the unspecified future,
17 and all those who has petitioned or will petition on such aliens’ behalf (Am. Compl. at ¶ 164).
18 Included under that vast umbrella are employers who will file immigrant visas on behalf of their
19 employees but have no due process interest in them; U.S. citizens or LPRs whose visa petitions
20 are never approved in the United States; non-immediate family members whose visa petition or 21 application processes could take years; and aliens deemed inadmissible for reasons unrelated to 22
the Order, to name just a few. Such an unwieldy class that includes interests that are speculative 23
and untethered to those of the named plaintiffs’ should not benefit from the extraordinary remedy 24
of injunctive relief. See McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1020 (9th Cir. 2012). “The fact 25

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 4

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 7

that [Plaintiffs] may ultimately be entitled to a declaratory judgment stating that [the New Order]is 1 2 unconstitutional on its face . . . does not mean that the preliminary injunction should apply so 3 broadly, at least in the absence of class certification.” Id.3

4

Finally, such judicial restraint adheres to the basic principle that, absent a recognized

5 exception, “litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.”

6 Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979). Injunctive relief entered in an individual case

7 “should [thus] be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief
8 to the plaintiffs.” Id. at 702; see also Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165-
9 66 (2010) (invalidating nationwide injunction where less burdensome remedy was available to
10 redress parties’ harm). “This rule applies with special force where there is no class certification.”
11 Los Angeles Haven Hospice v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d at 664.
12 In short, even if the Court were to grant preliminary injunctive relief in this case, binding
13 case law establishes that any such relief should extend no further than necessary to place the 10
14
15 named Plaintiffs in their allegedly rightful positions.
16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //
20 // 21 // 22
/ 23

24 3 Defendants assert that this Court should not expedite the class certification briefing schedule.
25 Plaintiffs’ noted their class certification brief for April 7, 2017. ECF No. 58.

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 5

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 6 of 7

DATED this 14th day of March, 2017. 1

2

Respectfully submitted,

3

CHAD A. READLER

Acting Assistant Attorney General

4 WILLIAM C. PEACHEY

5

Director

Office of Immigration Litigation

6

District Court Section

7

GISELA A. WESTWATER

8

Assistant Director

9

EREZ REUVENI

Senior Litigation Counsel

10 /s/ Stacey I. Young

11

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Bar #499324

Senior Litigation Counsel

12

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

13

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

14

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

15

Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-2445

16

Fax: (202) 305-7000

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 6

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 70 Filed 03/14/17 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1

2

I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

3 Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of

4 record for the Plaintiffs.

5

DATED this 14th day of March, 2017.

6

7

/s/ Stacey I. Young

8

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Nar #499324 Senior Litigation Counsel

9

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

10

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

11

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

12

Telephone: (202) 305-7171

Fax: (202) 305-7000

13

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF ON WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AWARDED TO AN UNCERTIFIED CLASS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 7

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 36

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10

11 JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

14 States, et al.,

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants.

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15

16

17

18

I. INTRODUCTION

19

Consistent with the Executive’s broad constitutional authority over foreign affairs and

20 national security, Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of Title 8 expressly authorize the President to

21 restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest. Exercising that

22 authority, the President issued Executive Order No. 13,780 (Order), which, inter alia, temporarily

23 suspends entry of certain foreign nationals from six countries that Congress and the previous 24 Administration determined pose a heightened terrorism risk. 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (2017). Those 25
suspensions apply only for a short period, to enable the new Administration to review the Nation’s

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

1

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 36

screening and vetting procedures to ensure that they adequately detect terrorists. For the past 30 1 2 years, every President has invoked his power to protect the Nation by suspending entry of 3 categories of aliens. As a legal matter, the Order is no different.

4

The Order takes effect on March 16, 2017 and revokes Executive Order No. 13,769

5 (“Revoked Order”), which was issued on January 27, 2017. After the Ninth Circuit declined to

6 stay a nationwide injunction against the Revoked Order, the President decided to issue a new Order

7 to address the Court’s concerns rather than engage in protracted litigation. The Order applies only
8 to aliens outside the United States who do not have a visa—that is, individuals who “ha[ve] no
9 constitutional rights regarding” their admission. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982).
10 Even as to them, the Order includes a comprehensive waiver process to mitigate any undue
11 hardship. The Order also eliminates any preference for religious minorities.
12 Despite these revisions, plaintiffs ask this Court for extraordinary relief at an extraordinary
13 pace. They seek a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order enjoining the Order in its
14
15 entirety, and—although they did not file their motion until March 10—they insist that this relief is
16 urgently required before the Order takes effect on March 16. But no immediate upheaval occurs

17 as a result of the new Order taking effect on that date: No identifiable plaintiff’s visa will be

18 revoked; visa processing will not halt; the unadmitted, non-resident alien plaintiffs have already

19 been waiting for at least months for a visa, as have their petitioner relatives in the United States;
20 and all visa applicants will have the opportunity to apply for a waiver. The plaintiffs’ request that
21 the Court take the extraordinary step of enjoining an exercise of the President’s authority to make
22 determinations regarding national security and admissibility can and should await more deliberate
23 presentation by the parties and less hurried consideration by the Court.
24 In any event, in light of these and other changes, plaintiffs have not and cannot meet their
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

2

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 36

heavy burden to justify the extraordinary remedy they seek. First, plaintiffs’ claims are not 1 2 justiciable. The nonresident, unadmitted alien plaintiffs are not entitled to judicial review, and 3 their petitioning relatives in the United States cannot demonstrate any cognizable injury fairly 4 traceable to the Order until their alien relatives have been denied a waiver. Second, plaintiffs’

5 claims fail on the merits. Two separate provisions of the immigration laws grant the President

6 broad authority plainly encompassing the Order’s temporary entry suspension. The Order is

7 completely neutral with respect to religion. Finally, plaintiffs have not demonstrated the other

8 factors necessary for emergency relief, including the requirement of immediate, irreparable harm.

9 Instead, the proper course of action here is for plaintiffs to seek a waiver an, if denied, to attempt
10 to bring as-applied challenges then on a more developed record. Indeed, that record would help
11 show whether the Order in fact causes harm to plaintiffs, which at this point is speculative. There
12 is, however, no basis to restrain the Order in the interim, and certainly no basis to restrain it as
13
applied to the putative nationwide class of as-yet unidentified individuals. For these reasons, 14
15 plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief should be denied.

16

II. BACKGROUND

17 III. STATUTORY BACKGROUND

18

The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq., governs admission of aliens

19 into the United States. Admission (aside from certain individuals, such as some lawful permanent

20 residents) generally requires a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa (or another entry document,

21 such as a refugee travel document). Id. §§1181, 1182(a)(7)(A)(i), (B)(i)(II), 1203. The process of

22 obtaining a visa under the INA typically includes an in-person interview and results in a decision

23 by a State Department consular officer. Id. §§1201(a)(1), 1202, 1204. Eligibility for a visa
24 depends on many factors, including nationality. See, e.g., id. §§1184(e), 1735.
25 Congress has established a Visa Waiver Program (Program) that enables certain nationals

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

3

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 36

of participating countries to seek temporary admission for tourism or certain business purposes 1 2 without a visa. 8 U.S.C. §§1182(a)(7)(B)(iv), 1187. In 2015, however, Congress excluded from 3 the Program individuals from Program-participating countries who have connections with specific 4 non-Program countries. Id. §1187(a)(12). Congress itself specifically excluded nationals of

5 countries participating in the Program who are dual nationals of or had recently visited Iraq or

6 Syria, where “[t]he Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) . . . maintain[s] a formidable force,”

7 and nationals of and recent visitors to countries designated by the Secretary of State as state
8 sponsors of terrorism (currently Iran, Sudan, and Syria).1 8 U.S.C. §1187(a)(12)(A)(i)-(ii).
9 Congress also authorized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate additional
10 countries of concern, considering whether a country is a “safe haven for terrorists,” “whether a
11 foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence” in the country, and “whether the presence
12 of an alien in the country . . . increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to” U.S.
13 national security, id. §1187(a)(12)(D)(i)-(ii), and in February 2016 DHS excluded recent visitors
14
15 to Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, noting that the designation was “indicative of the Department’s
16 continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters.”2 In short, Congress and the prior Administration

17 determined that the conditions in these seven countries warranted individualized review in

18 admitting aliens into our Nation’s borders.

19

Critically, although Congress created various avenues to admission, it accorded the

20 Executive broad discretion to restrict or suspend admission of aliens. First, Section 1182(f)
21 provides: 22
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into 23

24

1 U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 6 (2016), https://

www.state.gov/documents/organization/258249.pdf.

25

2 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-

visa-waiver-program.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

4

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 36

the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may

1

by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry

2

of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

3 Second, Section 1185(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an alien to enter or attempt to enter the country

4 “except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and
5 exceptions as the President may prescribe.”
6
IV. THE REVOKED ORDER 7
On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order No. 13,769 (the “Revoked 8

9 Order”), which will be revoked by Executive Order No. 13,780 at 12:01 a.m. on March 16, 2017.

10 It directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to assess current screening procedures

11 to determine whether they were sufficient to detect individuals who were seeking to enter this

12 country to do it harm. Revoked Order § 3(a)-(b). While that review was ongoing, the Revoked

13 Order suspended for 90 days entry of foreign nationals of the seven countries already identified as

14 posing heightened terrorism-related concerns in the context of the Visa Waiver Program. Id. §
15 3(c). It authorized the Secretaries, however, to make case-by-case exceptions to the suspension.
16 Id. § 3(g).
17 The Revoked Order similarly directed a review of the Refugee Program, and, pending that
18 review, suspended entry under the Program for 120 days, subject to case-by-case waivers.
19 Revoked Order §5(a), (c). It also suspended admission of Syrian refugees until the President
20 determined “that sufficient changes have been made to the [Refugee Program] to ensure that
21
22 admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.” Id. §5(c). Finally, it sought
23 to assist victims of religious persecution by directing agencies to prioritize refugee claims premised

24 on religious-based persecution, provided the religion at issue was “a minority religion in the

25 individual’s country of nationality.” Id. §5(b).

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

5

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 6 of 36

V. 1

LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE REVOKED ORDER

The Revoked Order was challenged in multiple courts. The State of Washington filed suit 2

3 in this Court, seeking a TRO against Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e). Washington v. Trump, No.

4 17-41 (W.D. Wash.). On February 3, 2017, this Court enjoined those provisions nationwide. 2007

5 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). On February 9, after accelerated briefing and argument,

6 the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the injunction pending appeal. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d

7 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Although acknowledging that the injunction may have

8 been “overbroad,” the court declined to narrow it, concluding that “[t]he political branches are far

9 better equipped” to do so. Id. at 1166-67.

10 VI. THE ORDER
11 Responding to the Ninth Circuit’s invitation, on March 6, 2017—at the joint urging of the
12 Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security3—the President issued the Order. The
13
Order takes effect on March 16, at which time it revokes the Revoked Order, and replaces it with 14

substantially revised provisions that address the Ninth Circuit’s concerns. 15

16

The Order’s central, explicit purpose is to enable the President and his Administration to

17 assess whether current screening and vetting procedures are sufficient to detect terrorists seeking

18 to infiltrate the Nation. Order § 1(f). To facilitate that important review, the President ordered a

19 temporary, 90-day pause on entry of certain foreign nationals from six nations previously

20 “identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States” by 21 Congress or the prior Administration: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Id. § 1(a), 22 (d)-(f). 23

24 3 Joint Ltr. to President (Mar. 6, 2017), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
25 publications/17_0306_S1_DHS-DOJ-POTUS-letter_0.pdf (Ex. A).

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

6

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 7 of 36

A. Temporary suspension of entry by certain aliens from six countries 1
As the Order explains, each of those countries “is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been 2 3 significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones,” which is 4 why Congress and the Secretary of Homeland Security previously designated them “countries of
5 concern.” Order §1 (d). The Order details the circumstances of each country that give rise to

6 “heightened risk[s]” that terrorists from those countries would attempt to enter the United States

7 and that those countries’ governments may lack the “willingness or ability to share or validate

8 important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States” to screen them
9 properly.
10 To that end, the Order “suspend[s] for 90 days” the “entry into the United States of
11 nationals of those six countries.” Order §2 (c). In response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, however,
12 the Order clarifies that the suspension applies only to aliens who: (1) are outside the United States
13 on the Order’s effective date, (2) do not have a valid visa on that date, and (3) did not have a valid
14 visa on the effective date of the Revoked Order. Order §3 (a). It expressly excludes other
15
16 categories of aliens that concerned the Ninth Circuit, including (among others) any lawful
17 permanent resident; any foreign national admitted to or paroled into the United States; any

18 individual with a document other than a visa permitting travel to the United States; and any foreign

19 national granted asylum, any refugee already admitted to the United States, or any individual

20 granted certain protections from removal. See id. § 3(b).

21

B. Case-by-case waivers

22

The Order also contains a detailed waiver provision. Order § 3(c). It permits consular

23 officials (and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection or his delegee
24 Commissioner) to grant case-by-case waivers where denying entry “would cause undue hardship”
25 and “entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest.” Id.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

7

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 8 of 36

Moreover, it lists circumstances where waivers could be considered, including for (among others): 1

2

• foreign nationals who were previously “admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity,” but who are currently outside the

3

country and seeking to reenter;

4

• individuals who seek entry for “significant business or professional obligations”; and

5

• individuals who seek entry “to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a

spouse, child, or parent) who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien

6

lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa.”

7 Id. These provisions providing examples of instances where a waiver may be warranted.

8

Finally, the Order specifies that requests for waivers will be processed “as part of the visa

9 issuance process.” Order §3 (c); see also U.S. Dep’t of State, Executive Order on Visas (Mar. 6,

10 2017), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html (Ex. B).
11 Consular officers reviewing visa applications, assuming the applicant is otherwise found eligible
12
for the visa, will carefully review each waiver request under these criteria. 13

VI. 14

DISMISSAL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL, AND PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

15

In light of the Order, on March 7, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss its appeal

16 of this Court’s preliminary injunction in Washington v. Trump, which the Ninth Circuit granted on
17 March 8. Plaintiffs, who initially filed suit on January 31, thereafter then on March 10, amended
18 their complaint, filed a second motion to certify a class (some named plaintiffs were added and
19 others were removed from the original putative class),4 and moved to enjoin Sections 1(f), 2 and
20

21

4 Plaintiffs now seek to certify the following class:

22

All nationals of countries designated by Section 2 of the Executive Order

23

13780 (currently Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) who have applied for or will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for

24

those nationals; whose visa application adjudication has been or will be

suspended or denied, or who have been or will be denied the ability to seek

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

8

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 9 of 36

3 of the Order, and Section 3(c) of the Revoked Order.5 1

2

The plaintiffs are either (1) family-based immigrant visa petitioners in the United States or

3 (2) beneficiaries of an approved, family-based immigrant visa petition who are allegedly nationals

4 of one of the designated countries and are applying for or intending to apply for an immigrant visa

5 at a U.S. embassy or consulate overseas. To obtain a family-based immigrant visa, a U.S. citizen

6 or lawful permanent resident (LPR) must file a visa petition (Form I-130), usually in the United

7 States. See 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1). If all the relevant requirements are satisfied, the overseas alien
8 who is the beneficiary of an approved petition may apply for a visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a); 8
9 U.S.C. § 1202(a). An alien visa applicant located outside the United States must appear at a U.S.
10 consulate for an in-person interview with a consular officer in the Department of State. See 8
11 U.S.C. § 1202(h). The decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with the consular officer.
12 See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). Neither the approval of a visa petition nor
13 the issuance of an immigrant visa guarantees admission to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§
14
15 1154(e), 1201(h). That decision rests with the DHS immigration officer following inspection of
16 the alien at a U.S. port of entry.

17

The 10 named plaintiffs include six aliens currently outside the United States, each of

18 whom is an unadmitted national of one of the six identified countries, and none of whom have

19 received a visa (collectively, “alien plaintiffs”). Each of the remaining plaintiffs (collectively, 20

21

entry into and/or enter the United States, on the basis of Executive Order

22

13780.

23

Amended Complaint (Am. Compl.) ¶ 164. Indeed, plaintiffs cannot represent this

class because they cannot yet show that their visa applications have been

24

“suspended or denied” based on the Order.

5 Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Revoked Order will be moot as of March 16. Order at §§

25 13, 14.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

9

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 10 of 36

“petitioner plaintiffs”) resides in the United States and filed an immigrant visa petition, as a parent 1 2 or a spouse, on behalf of at least one of the alien plaintiffs. These plaintiffs include two U.S. 3 citizens and two LPR petitioners.6

4

Of the six alien plaintiffs, three have not yet applied for a visa. See Exhibit, Declaration

5 of Chloe Dybdahl (“Ex.”). The other three applied for immigrant visas but their applications were

6 refused under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) on March 13, 2017, for reasons that include failing to provide

7 proof of a relationship with the petitioner. Id.

8

VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW

9

Emergency relief is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674,

10 689 (2008). The movant “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely
11 to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
12 [its] favor, and that [a TRO] is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
13 Injunctive relief that “deeply intrudes into the core concerns of the executive branch”—including
14
foreign affairs and national security—may be awarded only upon “an extraordinarily strong 15

16 showing” as to each element. Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954-55 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

17

VIII. ARGUMENT

18

Plaintiffs do not meet their extraordinary burden. At the outset, they present no justiciable

19 claims at all. As explained above, the Order applies only to individuals outside the country who

20 do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions. Plaintiffs,

21 therefore, either lack standing or their claims are unripe. Moreover, plaintiffs’ claims fail on the 22 merits. The Order falls well within the President’s statutory authority and addresses the 23

24

6 Although plaintiffs refer to U.S.-based employers as proposed class members, none is

25 listed as a named plaintiff. Thus, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), no such employers are parties to the lawsuit at this time.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

10

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 11 of 36

constitutional concerns identified by federal courts. Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the 1 2 sweeping relief they seek.

3 I.

PLAINTIFFS’ CHALLENGES TO THE ORDER ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE

4

All of plaintiffs’ claims fail because they lack Article III standing or their claims are not

5 yet ripe. Plaintiffs must demonstrate a “legally and judicially cognizable” injury, Raines v. Byrd,

6 521 U.S. 811, 819 (1997), consisting of, at minimum, a “concrete and particularized” injury caused

7 by the Order that is “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of

8 Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Moreover, “standing is not dispensed in gross. Rather, a
9 plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief
10 that is sought.” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008). They have not done so.
11 First, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability has long provided that an alien abroad
12 cannot obtain judicial review of the denial of a visa. See Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S.
13 180, 184 n.3, 185 n.6 (1956); Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016)
14 (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792, 794-95 (1977)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized a
15
16 “limited exception” to that doctrine “where the denial of a visa implicates the constitutional rights
17 of American citizens.” Cardenas, 826 F.3d at 1169. But most of plaintiffs’ claims—and all of the

18 alien plaintiffs’ claims—fall outside that limited exception and are therefore foreclosed by the

19 doctrine of nonreviewability.

20

Second, it is likewise well-established that there is no standing based on the purported

21 injury of a delay in visa decision-making. See, e.g., Catholic Charities CYO v. Chertoff, 622 F.

22 Supp. 2d 865, 878-80 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (holding no standing and that claims were unripe); Kodra

23 v. Sec’y, Dep’t of State, 903 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (no standing to challenge
24 delay of visa determination). Here, however, that is precisely what plaintiffs complain of: they
25 seek to challenge the Order’s temporary, 90-day suspension on entry, which is subject to waivers

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

11

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 12 of 36

even during that brief period. For this reason, as well, plaintiffs lack standing. 1

2

Third, even if the petitioner plaintiffs had standing, their claims are not ripe. “The

3 doctrine[] of . . . ripeness . . . originate[s] in Article III’s ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ language, no less

4 than standing does.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 351 (2006). Ripeness ensures

5 that courts “avoid[] . . . premature adjudication,” particularly where future agency decision-making

6 or factual determinations may change the character of the controversy or obviate the need for

7 judicial relief altogether. Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003).

8

Here, the facts as pleaded demonstrate that each of the petitioner plaintiffs’ claims are

9 unripe. The petitioner plaintiffs’ relatives in the designated countries are all individuals for whom
10 the Order specifically contemplates the possibility of a waiver. See Order §§ 3(c)(iv), 6(c). It is
11 therefore possible that every alien plaintiff—if each is found otherwise eligible for the visa—will
12 obtain such a waiver as part of the visa application process. Unless and until the alien plaintiffs
13
are denied a visa, their ability or inability to enter—and thus the petitioner plaintiffs’ claimed 14
15 injury—“rests upon ‘contingent future events.’” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998).

16

Plaintiffs attempt to demonstrate standing based on alleged injury under the Establishment

17 Clause, but they similarly fail to meet their burden. Although “the concept of injury for standing

18 purposes is particularly elusive in Establishment Clause cases,” a plaintiff cannot establish

19 standing without showing a personal injury resulting from the alleged violation of the
20 Establishment Clause. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
21 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 485-86 (1982) (plaintiffs lacked standing because they “fail[ed] to
22 identify any personal injury suffered by them . . . other than the psychological consequence
23 presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees”). Plaintiffs, rather,
24 must demonstrate a “particular and concrete injury to a personal constitutional right.” Id. at 482.
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

12

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 13 of 36

This, for example, could include a “direct harm of what is claimed to be an establishment of 1 2 religion, such as a mandatory prayer in a public school classroom,” or that Plaintiffs “have incurred 3 a cost or been denied a benefit on account of their religion,” which, for example, “can result from 4 alleged discrimination in the tax code, such as when the availability of a tax exemption is

5 conditioned on religious affiliation.” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 133-

6 34 (2011); see also Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew, 773 F.3d 815, 820-21 (7th Cir.

7 2014); Catholic League for Religious & Civ. Rights v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d
8 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
9 Plaintiffs make neither showing here. First, they cannot demonstrate “direct harm” because
10 the Order does not require Plaintiffs to “see or do anything.” Lew, 773 F.3d at 820; see Newdow
11 v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597
12 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (same plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the pledge of
13 allegiance because he had sustained no personal injury where “nothing in the Pledge [or the statute
14
15 codifying it] actually requires anyone to recite it”). In other words, the Order does not “convey[]
16 a government message of disapproval and hostility toward their religious beliefs” that causes them

17 to change their behavior by, for example, “forcing them to curtail their political activities . . . .”

18 Catholic League, 624 f.3d at 1053.

19

Likewise, plaintiffs cannot show they have incurred a cost or been denied a benefit on

20 account of their religion. No benefit has been denied—indeed, each alien plaintiff is still in visa

21 processing, which has not been halted under the Order. See, e.g., Lew, 773 F.3d at 821 (rejecting
22 standing where “the plaintiffs were never denied the parsonage exemption because they never
23 asked for it”). Indeed, given the comprehensive waiver process established by Section 3(c) of the
24 Order, plaintiffs’ claims with respect to aliens seeking entry or a visa in the future are entirely
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

13

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 14 of 36

speculative and therefore not ripe under Article III in the first place. See, e.g., Suhre, 131 F.3d at 1 2 1091 (discussing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102-06 (1983) and rejecting 3 Establishment Clause injury premised on “untenable assumptions” about future events); Lew, 773 4 F.3d at 821 (“A plaintiff cannot establish standing to challenge such a provision without having

5 personally claimed and been denied the [religious] exemption.”).

6 II. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS

7

A. The Order Is A Valid Exercise Of The President’s Authority

8

Even if plaintiffs’ challenges to the Order were justiciable, they would not warrant

9 emergency relief because none is likely to succeed. The Order’s temporary suspension of entry of

10 certain classes of aliens during a review of the Nation’s screening and vetting procedures is a valid
11 exercise of the President’s broad statutory authority to “suspend the entry of any aliens or of any
12 class of aliens” (Section 1182(f)) and to prescribe the terms on which aliens may enter (Section
13 1185(a)(1)). Yet, Plaintiffs contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1) should be construed as an implied
14 repeal of those authorities. No court has accepted that argument, which misreads the relevant
15
16 statutes.

17

1. The Order falls squarely within the President’s broad authority under

Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a)

18 “‘[T]he power to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining

19 normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and
20 dangers—a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of the government.’”
21

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 765 (1972). Congress, moreover, has conferred expansive 22

23 authority on the President, including in two statutory provisions that the Order expressly invokes.

24 Order § 2(c).

25

First, Section 1182(f) provides that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

14

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 15 of 36

aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the 1 2 United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend 3 the entry of all aliens or of any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants,” or “impose on 4 the entry of aliens any restrictions he deems to be appropriate.” “The President’s sweeping

5 proclamation power [under Section 1182(f)] provides a safeguard against the danger posed by any

6 particular case or class of cases that is not covered by one of the [inadmissibility] categories in

7 section 1182(a).” Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1049 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S.
8 1 (1987); see Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744 n.9 (9th Cir. 1980) (explaining that
9 Section 1182(f) “specifically grants the President, where it is in the national interest to do so, the
10 extreme power to prevent the entry of any alien or groups of aliens into this Country.”). Every
11 President over the last thirty years has invoked that authority to suspend or restrict entry of certain
12 classes of aliens.7
13 Second, Section 1185(a) broadly authorizes the “President” to “prescribe” reasonable
14
15 “rules, regulations, and orders,” and “limitations and exceptions” regarding entry of aliens. That
16 provision is the latest in a line of statutory grants of authority tracing back nearly a century. See

17 Pub. L. No. 65-154, §1(a), 40 Stat. 559 (1918). Originally limited to times of war or declared

18 national emergency, Congress removed that limitation in 1978, when it enacted Section 1185(a)

19 in its current form. Pub. L. 95-426, §707(a), 92 Stat. 963, 992-93 (1978).

20

Both of those provisions comfortably encompass the Order’s temporary suspension of

21 entry of aliens from six countries that the President—in consultation with the Attorney General 22

23

7 See, e.g., Proclamation 5517 (1986) (Reagan; Cuban nationals); Exec. Order No.

24 12,807 (1992) (George H.W. Bush; government officials who impeded anti-human-trafficking efforts); Proclamation 8342 (2009) (George W. Bush; same); Proclamation 6958 (1996) (Clinton;

25 Sudanese government officials and armed forces); Proclamation 8693 (Obama; aliens subject to

U.N. Security Council travel bans).

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

15

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 16 of 36

and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security—concluded required special precautions while 1 2 the review of existing screening and vetting protocols is completed. That temporary measure is a 3 paradigmatic exercise of the President’s authority to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” 4 he finds may be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), and to

5 prescribe “limitations” and “exceptions” on entry, id. § 1185(a)(1).

6

2. Section 1152 does not restrict the President’s broad authority under

Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) 7

Plaintiffs contend (Mot. at 9-13) that Section 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits 8

9 discrimination on the basis of nationality in the allocation of immigrant visas, bars the President

10 from drawing nationality-based distinctions under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a), notwithstanding

11 the fact that Presidents have done just that for decades. Plaintiffs are wrong.

12

Even where it applies, Section 1152(a)(1)(A) does not restrict the President’s authority to

13 draw nationality-based distinctions under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a). Section 1152(a)(1)(A)

14 was enacted in 1965 to abolish the prior system of nationality-based quotas for immigrant visas.
15 Congress replaced that system with uniform, per-country percentage limits. Section 1152(a)(1)(A)
16 addresses the subject of relative “preference” or “priority” (and reciprocal disadvantage or
17 “discrimination”) in the allocation of immigrant visa numers by making clear that the uniform
18 percentage limits are the only limits that may be placed on the number of immigrant visas issued
19 to nationals of any country.
20 Section 1152(a)(1)(A) thus governs the ordinary process of allocating and granting
21
22 immigrant visas. Its plain text governs only “the issuance of an immigrant visa”; it does not purport
23 to restrict the President’s antecedent, longstanding authority to suspend entry of “any class of
24 aliens” or to prescribe reasonable “rules, regulations, and orders” regarding entry as he deems

25 appropriate. And it has never been understood to prohibit the President from drawing nationality-

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

16

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 17 of 36

based distinctions under Section 1182(f). For example, President Reagan invoked Section 1182(f) 1 2 to “suspend entry into the United States as immigrants by all Cuban nationals,” subject to 3 exceptions. Proclamation No. 5517 (1986). See also Proclamation 6958 (1996) (members of 4 Sudanese government and armed forces); Proclamation 5829 (1988) (certain Panamanian

5 nationals); Proclamation 5887 (1988) (Nicaraguan government officers and employees).

6

Section 1185(a), too, has long been understood to authorize nationality-based distinctions.

7 In 1979, the Office of Legal Counsel construed it as authorizing the President to “declare that the
8 admission of Iranians or certain classes of Iranians would be detrimental to the interests of the
9 United States.” Immigration Laws and Iranian Students, 4A Op. O.L.C. 133, 140 (Nov. 11, 1979).
10 Two weeks later, President Carter invoked Section 1185(a) to direct “limitations and exceptions”
11 regarding “entry” of certain “Iranians.” Exec. Order No. 12,172 (1979). It is thus simply incorrect
12 that past Presidents have not drawn nationality-based distinctions in administering the immigration
13 laws. See also, e.g., Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 746-748 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (upholding
14
15 regulation that required nonimmigrant-alien post-secondary-school students who were Iranian
16 natives or citizens to provide residence and immigration status to former INS).

17

Interpreting Section 1152(a)(1)(A) to prohibit the President from drawing these and other

18 nationality-based distinctions would raise serious constitutional questions that the Court must

19 avoid if possible. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades
20 Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988). As these examples illustrate, limiting the entry of nationals of
21 particular countries can be critical to the President’s ability to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs
22 and protect its security. Yet plaintiffs’ statutory interpretation would completely disable the
23 President from restricting the entry of immigrants from any country—even one with which the
24 United States was on the verge of war.
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

17

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 18 of 36

Plaintiffs offer no sound reason to adopt that constitutionally dubious interpretation or to 1 2 upset the long-settled understanding of the President’s statutory authority. Plaintiffs cite one 3 decision addressing nationality-based distinctions in another immigration context, which did not 4 involve an exercise of the President’s authority under Section 1182(f) or Section 1185(a).8 See

5 Mot. at 9. Plaintiffs are wrong that that decision reflects a general bar on nationality-based

6 distinctions in immigration. In fact, “given the importance to immigration law of, inter alia,

7 national citizenship, passports, treaties, and relations between nations, the use of such
8 classifications is commonplace and almost inevitable.” Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 435 (2d
9 Cir. 2008).
10 Plaintiffs contend (Mot. at 11) that Section 1152(a)(1)(A) overrides the President’s Section
11 1182(f) authority because it was enacted later in time. In fact, plaintiffs have it backwards: to
12 read Section 1152(a)(1)(A) as narrowing the President’s Section 1182(f) authority would be to
13 treat it as a partial “‘repeal[] by implication,’” which courts will not do unless Congress’s
14
15 “‘intention’” is “‘clear and manifest.’” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
16 (NAHB), 551 U.S. 644, 662, 664 n.8 (2007); see Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148,

17 155 (1976). Sections 1152(a)(1)(A) and 1182(f) can, and therefore must, be reconciled by sensibly

18 reading Section 1152(a)(1)(A)’s general, default provisions as not affecting the President’s

19 authority to suspend entry under Section 1182(f) based on a specific finding about the national 20 interest. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2070-71 (2012) 21 (“‘[I]t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.’”). 22

23

8 See Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 45 F.3d 469,

24 472-73 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (processing immigrant visas), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996); Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) (issuance of nonimmigrant visas by

25 individual consular officers).

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

18

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 19 of 36

Furthermore, even if Section 1152(a)(1)(A) could be construed to narrow Section 1182(f), 1 2 it cannot be read to narrow Section 1185(a)—which was substantially amended in 1978, after 3 Section 1152(a)(1)(A)’s enactment. Nothing in Section 1185(a)’s current text or post-1978 history 4 limits the President’s authority to restrict entry by nationals of particular countries.

5

B. The Order Does Not Violate The Due Process Clause

6

The Order applies only to aliens who have no due-process rights in connection with their

7 entry into this country. Plaintiffs assert the purported due-process rights of the U.S. citizen and

8 LPR visa petitioners with respect to the entry of aliens abroad. But their claims fail for numerous

9 reasons, including because the Order provides whatever individualized process the Constitution

10 may require.
11 1.
12

The plaintiffs do not have due-process rights with respect to their entry into the United States

13

The only persons subject to the Order are foreign nationals outside the United States with

14 no visa or other authorization to enter this country. Order § 3(a)-(b). An “unadmitted and

15 nonresident alien” has “no constitutional right of entry to this country,” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762,
16 and “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied
17 entry is concerned.” , 338 U.S.at 544; see also Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062-63
18 (9th Cir. 2008). Congress, with limited exception, has not provided for any judicial review of a
19 visa refusal or revocation. See, e.g., 6 U.S.C. § 236(f ) (providing that the designation of authorities
20 in Section 236 does not give rise to a private right of action against a consular officer to challenge
21
a decision to grant or deny a visa); 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i) (no judicial review of visa revocation except 22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

19

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 20 of 36

in limited circumstances).9 Thus, under the firmly entrenched doctrine of consular 1 2 nonreviewability and the Supreme Court law that cements its footing, the alien plaintiffs are 3 entitled to no judicial review

4

2. The petitioner plaintiffs’ due-process claims lack merit

5

First, the Due Process Clause confers no entitlement on persons in the United States

6 regarding the entry of others. See Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2129, 2131 (plurality opinion) (“There

7 is no such constitutional right.”) In a pre-Din decision, however, the Ninth Circuit held that a U.S.
8 citizen spouse had a protected liberty interest in her husband’s entry. See Bustamante, 531 F.3d at
9 1062. But Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Din expressly reserved judgment on whether
10 a citizen in the United States has any due-process right even with respect to entry of her spouse;
11 he found no “need [to] decide that issue” because “the Government satisfied any” due-process
12 “obligation it might have had.” Id. at 2139, 2141. There (and in Bustamante), the alleged due-
13 process right was tied to the fundamental right to marry, see 135 S. Ct. at 2134 (plurality op.)—
14
15 i.e., “a protected liberty interest in” and “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage,”

16

17

9 Congress has repeatedly acknowledged the consular nonreviewability doctrine and

chosen to leave it undisturbed. When Congress drafted the INA in 1952, there were suggestions

18 to authorize judicial review of visa denials or to create “a semijudicial board . . . with jurisdiction

to review consular decisions pertaining to the granting or refusal of vi-sas,” H.R. Rep. No. 1365,

19 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 36 (1952) (House Report); see S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 622

(1950). But Congress declined to enact any such procedure. Then in 1961, when the INA was 20 amended to authorize judicial review of determinations affecting aliens in the United States subject

to deportation or exclusion proceedings, Congress provided no corresponding right to judicial 21 review for aliens outside the United States claiming some right to enter. See Act of Sept. 26, 1961,

22

Pub. L. No. 87-301, § 5(a), 75 Stat. 651. As recently as 2002, Congress made clear that the Homeland Security Amendments did not create a “private right of action to challenge a decision

23 of a consular officer or other United States official or employee to grant or deny a visa.” Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 428(b), (e), and (f ), 116 Stat. 2187-2190. And

24 Congress has failed to enact numerous bills proposing to establish a board within the Department of State to review consular officers’ visa decisions. See, e.g., H.R. 3305, 103d Cong., 1st Sess.

25 (1993); H.R. 2975, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996); H.R. 4539, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998); H.R.

1345, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001).

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

20

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 21 of 36

Bustamante, 531 F.3d at 1062. To the extent that plaintiffs seek to assert claims based on the entry 1 2 of non-spouses, or based on the rights of LPRs rather than U.S. citizens, Din and Bustamante do 3 not support their claims. See, e.g., Santos v. Lynch, 2016 WL 3549366, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. June 4 29, 2016) (declining to extend Din to find “liberty interest an adult child to live in the United States

5 with her parents”); L.H. v. Kerry, No. 14-06212, slip op. 3-4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017) (same;

6 daughter, son-in-law, and grandson).

7

Second, assuming the Due Process Clause applies to the petitioner plaintiffs, their

8 procedural due-process claims fail because they do not explain what further process the

9 Constitution could possibly require. Of course, as we have explained, one reason for this is that
10 their claims are premature, filed in advance of visa decisions rather than after them, as was the
11 case in Din and Mandel. Unlike the plaintiff in Din,10 the petitioner plaintiffs here do not seek
12 additional explanation for an individualized immigration decision or contend that officials
13
misapplied a legal standard to a particular case. Instead, they challenge the President’s decision 14
15 to suspend the entry of certain nationals of six countries. Plaintiffs do not and cannot claim that

16 due process requires notice or individualized hearings where, as here, the government acts through

17 categorical judgments rather than individual adjudications. See Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd.

18 of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 446 (1915); Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d 1356, 1363 (9th Cir.

19 1980).

20

Third, even if some individualized process were required, the Order more than provides it

21 through the consular review of waiver requests (part of the visa-application process), including for 22
foreign nationals seeking to “visit or reside with a close family member.” Order § 3(c)(iv); see id. 23

24 10 To be clear, the limited judicial review described in Din applied to U.S. citizens
25 petitioning on behalf of their spouses, and no court has extended it to LPRs.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

21

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 22 of 36

§ 3(c)(i)-(ix). In Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Din, the only process that he required 1 2 was a notice of the decision along with a general statement of the legal basis for the decision. 135 3 S. Ct. at 2140–41. The waiver process is plainly sufficient, even under this standard. Although
4 plaintiffs describe the waiver process as “limited” and “arduous” (Mot. at 11), they provide no
5 support for their claim or point to any specific inadequacy in the process. Instead, the Order
6 establishes a waiver process that provides an avenue for individuals like the alien plaintiffs who
7 establish that they are otherwise eligible for visas to enter the United States. Importantly, visa
8 processing is going to move forward after the Order goes into effect, making this not a case that 9
involves process being available. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Executive Order on Visas (2016), 10
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258249.pdf. At an absolute minimum, Plaintiffs 11
cannot claim that the Due Process Clause entitles them to emergency injunctive relief when they 12
have not availed themselves of the process the Order provides. 13
C. The Order Does Not Discriminate Based On Religion 14
The Order does not discriminate on the basis of religion. It applies to six countries that 15 16 Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. It applies to
17 all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion. And it excludes numerous
18 individuals with ties to this country, while providing a comprehensive waiver process for others.
19 Plaintiffs nevertheless try to impugn the Order using campaign statements. As the Supreme Court
20 has made clear, official action must be adjudged by its “‘text, legislative history, and
21 implementation of the statute or comparable official act[ion],’” not through “judicial 22 psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 23
862 (2005) (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000)). Measured 24
against these standards, the Order falls well within the President’s lawful authority. 25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

22

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 23 of 36

1. The Order draws distinctions on the basis of risk of terrorism, not

1

religion

2

Plaintiffs correctly do not contend that the Order draws “explicit and deliberate

3 distinctions” based on religion. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 n.23 (1982). The only
4 language in the Revoked Order touching on religion—a neutral provision intended to assist victims
5 of religious persecution—has been removed. And the Order’s temporary suspensions are
6 expressly premised on the President’s finding that a temporary pause in entry was necessary to
7 “prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists” while the review of screening and vetting procedures is
8
9 ongoing. Order § 2(c). The six countries covered were previously designated by Congress and
10 the Executive Branch as presenting particular risks, and the risk of continued entry from those

11 countries during the review was, in the President’s view, unacceptably high.

12

The Order’s stated “secular purpose” is entitled to “deference” so long as it is “genuine,”

13 i.e., “not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864.

14 Courts judge the genuineness of the government’s true “object” by considering the “operation” of

15 its action, as “the effect of a law in its real operation is strong evidence of its object.” Church of

16 the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 535 (1993). The “Establishment
17 Clause analysis does not look to the veiled psyche of government officers,” but rather to “the ‘text,
18 legislative history, and implementation of the statute,’ or comparable official act.” McCreary, 545
19 U.S. at 862-63. Here, the operation of both suspensions confirms the Order’s stated purpose. The
20
suspensions apply irrespective of any alien’s religion, and plaintiffs do not contend otherwise. 21

22

The fact that the six countries covered by the entry suspension are predominantly Muslim

23 in no way establishes that the suspension’s object is to single out Islam. The six countries covered

24 were previously selected by Congress and the Executive through a process that Plaintiffs do not

25 contend was religiously motivated. In addition, those countries represent only a small fraction of

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

23

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 24 of 36

the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim 1
population.11 And the suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of 2 3 non-Muslim individuals in those countries, unless they are either excluded from its scope or
4 entitled to a waiver based on the religiously neutral exclusion and waiver provisions.

5

2. The Order cannot be restrained on the basis of campaign statements or

the Revoked Order

6

Plaintiffs argue that the Order targets Islam not because of what it says or does, but because

7

of statements by the President, mostly before he assumed office, and his surrogates. Mot. at 1-5. 8

9 Plaintiffs cannot use either type of parol evidence to evade the Order’s secular purpose.

10

As a threshold matter, the Supreme Court has made clear in the immigration context that

11 courts may not “look behind the exercise of [Executive] discretion” taken “on the basis of a facially

12 legitimate and bona fide reason.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 77; see Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 796

13 (1977). That clear rule alone—which plaintiffs never address—disposes of their Establishment

14 Clause claim. As those cases recognize, plaintiffs’ approach would thrust courts into the untenable
15 position of probing the Executive’s judgments on foreign affairs and national security. And it
16 would invite impermissible intrusion on Executive Branch deliberations, which are
17 constitutionally “privilege[d]” against such inquiry, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708
18 (1974), as well as litigant-driven discovery that would disrupt the President’s ongoing execution
19 of the laws, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982). Searching for governmental
20 purpose outside official pronouncements and the operative terms of governmental action is fraught
21
22 with practical “pitfalls” and “hazards” that courts should avoid. Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S.
23 217, 224 (1971).

24

25

11 See Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project, Muslim Population by

Country (2010), http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/muslims

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

24

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 25 of 36

Even if the Court could look behind the President’s facially legitimate reasons for 1 2 suspending the entry of certain foreign nationals and refugees, informal statements by the President 3 or his surrogates that do not directly concern the Order are irrelevant. The Supreme Court has 4 declined to rely even on press statements and other informal communications by incumbent

5 government officials, recognizing that they may not accurately reflect the government’s position.

6 See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 623-24 & n.52 (2006); see also Professionals & Patients

7 for Customized Care v. Shalala, 56 F.3d 592, 599 (5th Cir. 1995). A fortiori, statements by private
8 persons cannot reveal “the government’s ostensible object.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 859-60; see
9 Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 411-12 (3d Cir. 2004) (declining to rely on position
10 of non-government parties); Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017, 1031 (10th Cir.
11 2008) (same); Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140, 147 (4th Cir. 2010) (same); see also
12 Peck., 155 F.3d at 281-82 (observing that the government’s affirmative action or statement
13 discouraging notion that its action has religious purpose can negate “objective observer” finding
14
15 of religious intent); ACLU of Kentucky v. Mercer County, 432 F.3d 624, 631 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[t]he
16 only history the objective observer would incorporate into this display is the statement of Judge

17 McGinnis [filed after the litigation was instituted] that the purpose of the display is to recognize

18 American legal traditions”).

19

Using comments by political candidates to question the stated purpose of later action is

20 particularly problematic. Candidates are not government actors, and statements of what they might

21 attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not “official act[s].”
22 McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862. They generally are made without the benefit of advice from an as-
23 yet-unformed Administration, and cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different
24 course is warranted. See Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 780 (2002). Permitting
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

25

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 26 of 36

campaign statements to contradict official pronouncements of the government’s objectives would 1 2 inevitably “chill political debate during campaigns.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th 3 Cir. 1995) (declining to rely on campaign statements). It also would be unworkable, requiring the 4 “judicial psychoanalysis” that McCreary repudiated. 545 U.S. at 862; see also Mergens, 496 U.S.

5 at 249 (“[W]hat is relevant is the legislative purpose of the statute, not the possibly religious

6 motives of the legislators who enacted the law . . . .”) (emphasis in original); United States v.

7 O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383 (1968) (noting that “[i]nquiries into congressional motives or purposes
8 are a hazardous matter”).
9 Even considering plaintiffs’ proffered extrinsic evidence, none of it demonstrates that this
10 Order—adopted after the President took office, in response to specific, identifiable national
11 security objectives that are not tied to religion—was driven by religious animus. Plaintiffs’
12 marquee statement proves the point: they cite a 15-month-old campaign press release advocating
13 a “complete shutdown” on Muslims’ entering the country. Mot. at 2. That release and other
14
15 proffered statements reveal nothing about the Order’s aim, because the Order does no such thing.
16 Far from banning Muslims indefinitely, the Order pauses for 90 days entry from just six countries

17 previously identified as posing particular risks, which is subject to religion-neutral exceptions and

18 case-by-case waivers. There is a complete disconnect between plaintiffs’ imputed purpose and the

19 Order’s actual effect.

20

Plaintiffs contend (Mot. at 17) that McCreary requires looking behind the Order’s text and

21 legal effects to speculate at its aims. In fact, McCreary says the opposite. McCreary makes clear
22 that what matters is not a government official’s subjective motive, but only the “official objective”
23 drawn from “readily discoverable fact.” 545 U.S. at 862. As McCreary explained, the Supreme
24 Court’s previous cases had rested on analysis of objective facts directly related to the law at issue:
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

26

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 27 of 36

“In each case, the government’s action was held unconstitutional only because openly available 1 2 data”—a law’s text or obvious effects, the policy it replaced, official public statements of the law’s 3 purpose, or “comparable official act[s]”—“supported a commonsense conclusion that a religious 4 objective permeated the government’s action.” Id. at 862-63 (emphasis added); see Lukumi, 508

5 U.S. at 534-35 (gleaning purpose from ordinances’ “text” and “operation”).

6

McCreary’s analysis of the counties’ purpose therefore centered on the text of the

7 resolutions that serially authorized Ten Commandments displays and the features of those displays.
8 See 545 U.S. at 868-74. Although the Court referred to other sources (e.g., official statements
9 made during legislative meetings) in describing the facts, e.g., id. at 851, McCreary’s reasoning
10 and holding rested on the actions the counties took and inferences fairly drawn from them, id. at
11 868-74. The Court emphatically rejected suggestions that it “look to the veiled psyche of
12 government officers.” Id. at 863.
13 The contrast between this case and McCreary could not be more stark. There, the religious
14
15 purpose of the original resolution authorizing the Ten Commandments display was readily evident
16 from the outset. 545 U.S. at 868-69. The counties’ second resolution compounded the problem,

17 making the religious aim explicit. Id. at 870. The counties’ third and final display still showed a

18 “sectarian spirit,” since it included a different version of the Ten Commandments that “quoted

19 more of the purely religious language of the Commandments than the first two displays had done,”

20 and, significantly, was created “without a new resolution or repeal of the old one.” Id. at 870, 872.

21

Here, in contrast, the Order does not convey any religious message; indeed, it does not

22 reference religion at all. The Revoked Order contained provisions addressing religious minorities,

23 but—as the new Order takes care to explain—those provisions did not and never were intended to
24
discriminate along denominational lines. Order §1(b)(iv). Regardless, the current Order 25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

27

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 28 of 36

responded to concerns about the Revoked Order’s aims by removing the provisions that 1 2 purportedly drew religious distinctions—erasing any doubt that national security, not religion, is 3 the focus. The Order also reflects the considered views of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 4 Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, who announced the Order and whose motives have

5 not been impugned. In short, the President’s efforts to accommodate courts’ concerns while

6 simultaneously fulfilling his constitutional duty to protect the Nation only confirms that the

7 Order’s intention most emphatically is not to discriminate along religious lines.

8

D. Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claim is Unavailing

9 Plaintiffs claim that the Order violates the equal protection component of the Fifth
10 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. But again, the alien plaintiffs lack constitutional rights with
11 respect to their request to enter the United States, and the petitioner plaintiffs are only entitled, if
12 anything, to review under the “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard. See Fiallo, 430 U.S. at
13
796. In any event, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard 14
15 (Mot. at 14-15), where an equal protection claim is made to an immigration law, at most rational

16 basis review applies. See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976) (considering whether a

17 law that made distinctions based on alien status was “wholly irrational”); Jimenez–Angeles v.

18 Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasoning that nationality-based classification of

19 noncitizens satisfies equal protection if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.).

20

Under highly deferential rational basis scrutiny, a classification must be upheld so long as

21 “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the
22 classification.” F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993); see also See Yao v.
23 I.N.S., 2 F.3d 317, 321 (9th Cir. 1993). Equal protection is satisfied so long as there is “a plausible
24 policy reason for the classification, the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

28

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 29 of 36

based rationally may have been considered to be true by the governmental decisionmaker, and the 1 2 relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary 3 or irrational.” Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11 (1992).

4

The Order easily satisfies this relevant standard. From a constitutional perspective, the

5 Executive Branch is permitted to draw distinctions based on nationality in the context of

6 immigration and entry into the United States. See, e.g., Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 978 n.30

7 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc), (“[T]here is little question that the Executive has the power to draw

8 distinctions among aliens on the basis of nationality.”), aff’d on non-constitutional grounds, 472

9 U.S. 846 (1985); Narenji, 617 F.2d at 748 (“[C]lassifications among aliens based upon nationality

10 are consistent with due process and equal protection if supported by a rational basis.”); Rajah, 544
11 F.3d at 435 (2d Cir. 2008) (similar); Appiah v. INS, 202 F.3d 704, 710 (4th Cir. 2000) (similar).
12
Here, the President’s determination that nationals from the six countries identified are associated 13

with a heightened risk of terrorism creates a rational basis for the Order. 14

15

Plaintiffs also allege that the Order violates the Equal Protection Clause because it stems

16 from “religious animus against Islam.” (Mot. at 15.) But that argument is equivalent to plaintiffs’

17 religious-discrimination claim under the Establishment Clause, and it fails for the same reason

18

E. Plaintiffs Find No Relief From The Administrative Procedure Act Or

Mandamus Act 19

Plaintiffs fail to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under the 20

21 Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act for several reasons. First,

22 Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the APA against the Order because the President is not an

23 “agency.” In Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992), the Supreme Court

24 concluded that the Presidency is not an agency as defined in the APA, § 701(b)(1). Courts have

25 interpreted Franklin to prohibit review under the APA of actions by the President when he is

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

29

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 30 of 36

exercising discretionary authority. See, e.g., Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Gov’t of Canada, 189 F. 1 2 Supp. 3d 85, 104 (D.D.C. 2016). Here, Congress has granted the President authority to suspend 3 entry for any class of aliens if he finds that such entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the 4 United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Pursuant to, and without exceeding, that grant of discretionary

5 authority, the President issued the Order and suspended entry of aliens from the six subject

6 countries. The President’s action is thus unreviewable under the APA. See Detroit Int’l Bridge,

7 189 F. Supp. 3d at 104-05.

8

Second, the APA precludes judicial review of any agency action that is “committed to

9 agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 594, 600-01
10 (1988) (holding that the Director of Central Intelligence had complete discretion over employee
11 discharges, and thus judicial review was precluded). By its plain terms, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) vests
12 discretion in the President to determine whether “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens
13
into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for the period 14
15 “as he shall deem necessary,” and to impose such conditions of entry as “he may deem

16 appropriate.” As a result, there is no discernable standard for judicial review of the President’s

17 determinations. See Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 789 F. Supp. 1552, 1575-76 (S.D. Fla.

18 1991). Thus, even if plaintiffs could challenge a presidential finding under the APA, the challenge

19 would necessarily fail under these circumstances.

20

Third, to the extent the alien plaintiffs seek APA review, as explained supra, they have no

21 right of admission into this country.12 Therefore, plaintiffs have no likelihood of success on the

22 merits of a claim under the APA seeking to require the government to admit them into this country.
23

24 12 Insofar as plaintiffs are reasserting constitutional claims under the APA, their claims
25 necessarily fail for the reasons stated earlier.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

30

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 31 of 36

The INA confers upon consular officers the exclusive authority to adjudicate visa applications. 1 2 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1104(a), 1201(a); see also 6 U.S.C. § 236(b), (c). It is well established, however, 3 that “[o]btaining a visa from an American consul has never guaranteed an alien’s entry into the 4 United States. A visa merely gives the alien permission to arrive at a port of entry and have an

5 immigration officer independently examine the alien’s eligibility for admission.” Saavedra Bruno

6 v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1201(h)); see also 8 U.S.C. §

7 1154(e). Any suggestion to the contrary by plaintiffs is incorrect.

8

Fourth, the APA affords no relief to the petitioner plaintiffs who claim a constitutionally-

9 protected interest in their family life that would entitle them to judicial review of a consular
10 officer’s visa refusal decision. APA review for arbitrary and capricious decision-making is
11 incompatible with the limitations imposed by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which
12 qualifies as one of the “limitations on judicial” review that overcomes the APA’s presumption of
13
reviewability. See 5 U.S.C. § 702(1) (“Nothing herein . . . affects other limitations on judicial 14
15 review . . . .”); Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1160-62 (the APA does not disturb the general rule

16 that no judicial review is available regarding the decision to exclude an alien from the United

17 States). Because any judicial review of those plaintiffs’ claims would necessarily be limited to

18 whether the decisions qualify as facially legitimate and bona fide, review under the APA does not

19 apply. Id.; Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770.

20

Finally, with respect to plaintiffs’ request for relief under the Mandamus Act, their claim

21 fails because they do not identify any discrete agency action that is legally required. See Norton
22 v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63-64 (2004). As discussed, to the extent plaintiffs claim
23 that Congress’s delegation through § 1182(f) is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) (Mot. at 13-
24 14), § 1152(a)(1)(A) does not address—and thus does not circumscribe—the President’s authority
25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

31

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 32 of 36

under § 1182(f). Thus, Plaintiffs cannot use the APA or the Mandamus Act to challenge the Order. 1

2 III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SHOWN IMMEDIATE, IRREPARABLE HARM

3

Plaintiffs’ request for emergency injunctive relief independently fails because they cannot

4 show “irreparable harm.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. To secure an injunction, plaintiffs “must do

5 more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing”; they “must demonstrate

6 immediate threatened injury” that only “preliminary injunctive relief” can prevent. Caribbean

7 Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original).

8

Examining the alleged circumstances of the alien plaintiffs, not all of them have completed

9 the steps necessary to be placed into the queue for visa application interview scheduling, and those
10 who have have already been waiting for months. ECF No. 58, 9-13. Of the six alien plaintiffs,
11 three alien plaintiffs have not yet applied for a visa. See Ex. The other three applied for immigrant
12 visas but their applications were refused under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) on March 13, 2017, for reasons
13 that include failing to provide proof of a relationship with the petitioner. Id. Given their posture
14
in the visa process, none of these plaintiffs—or their petitioning family members—can 15
16 demonstrate the type of immediate, irreparable harm necessary to obtain a temporary restraining

17 order or preliminary injunction.

18

Regardless, as “close family members,” every alien plaintiff is a strong candidate for a

19 waiver allowing entry under Section 3(c)(iv) of the Order if they are found otherwise eligible for

20 visas, such that Plaintiffs cannot plausibly argue that but for an immediate injunction, they will be

21 denied a visa or entry to the United States because of some impermissible reason. Accordingly,

22 under the present circumstances, plaintiffs’ any legitimate claim of immediate, irreparable harm is

23 purely speculative. See Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 67 (where multiple contingencies must
24 occur before an injury would become a concrete harm, the injury was “too speculative to constitute
25 an irreparable harm justifying injunctive relief”).

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

32

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 33 of 36

IV. 1

THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGH STRONGLY AGAINST EMERGENCY RELIEF

2

The government and the public’s interest—which merge here, see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

3 418, 435 (2009)—counsel strongly in favor of leaving the Order in effect. The President, in
4 consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security,
5 determined that, while the review of screening and vetting procedures is ongoing, the “risk of
6 erroneously permitting entry” of an individual who intends to commit terrorist acts “is
7 unacceptably high.” Order §1(f). That risk assessment provides more than sufficient basis to leave
8
9 the Order’s temporary, precautionary safeguards in place.

10

Experience and empirical data already demonstrate the ability of would-be terrorists to

11 infiltrate the country through cracks in screening and vetting processes; some 300 persons who

12 entered as refugees are currently under investigation, and hundreds of foreign-born persons have

13 been convicted of terrorism-related crimes. Order §1 (h). Given that reality, the Executive’s

14 obligation, and the Order’s aim, is to predict where the greatest risk exists going forward. The
15 Order reflects such prediction, identifying six countries that Congress and the prior Administration
16 had found present a “heightened risk” that possibly inadequate screening could enable terrorist
17 infiltration. Order § 1(e). The Order further details the specific concerns with each of the six
18 countries (and why Iraq now presents a different circumstance). Id. § 1(e), (g).
19 The Order thus reflects the Executive’s “[p]redictive judgment,” which is entitled to the
20 greatest possible degree of judicial deference. Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527-29
21
22 (1988). Such judgments “have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not
23 subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry,” as they “are delicate, complex, and involve large elements

24 of prophecy,” and are “of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor

25 responsibility.” Chi. & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948). “[W]hen

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

33

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 34 of 36

it comes to collecting evidence and drawing factual inferences in this area, the lack of competence 1 2 on the part of the courts is marked, and respect for the Government’s conclusions is appropriate.” 3 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), 561 U.S. 1, 34 (2010) (internal citation omitted).

4

The “evaluation of the facts by the Executive” to support predictive judgments is especially

5 “entitled to deference” when “litigation implicates sensitive and weighty interest of national

6 security and foreign affairs.” HLP, 561 U.S. at 33-35. When the Executive adopts “a preventive

7 measure” in order “to prevent imminent harms in the context of international affairs and national
8 security,” the government “is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before
9 we grant weight to its empirical conclusions.” Id. at 35. Thus, where “[t]he Executive … deem[s]
10 nationals of a particular country a special threat,” “a court would be ill equipped to determine the[]
11 authenticity and utterly unable to assess the[] adequacy” of that determination. Reno v. American-
12 Arab Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 491 (1999).
13 Plaintiffs offer nothing that could plausibly justify disregarding the considerable deference
14
15 due to the Executive’s analysis and predictive judgments. The best they muster is a leaked draft
16 report asserting that “not a single fatal terrorist attack” has already been carried out by a foreign

17 national of one of the six countries subject to the suspension. Mot. at 5 n.21. That single draft

18 document could not possibly overcome the final assessment of the President and multiple Cabinet

19 Secretaries. Joint Ltr. to President (Mar. 6, 2017); see NAHB, 551 U.S. at 658-59. More
20 fundamentally, plaintiffs miss the point: the Order’s objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks
21 before they occur. And that is precisely why the Order focuses on six countries that Congress and 22
the prior Administration recently determined pose the greatest risk of terrorist infiltration in the 23
future. 24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

34

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 35 of 36

V. CONCLUSION 1

Plaintiffs’ motion for emergency injunctive relief should be denied. 2

3

DATED this 14th day of March, 2017.

4

Respectfully submitted,

5

CHAD A. READLER

Acting Assistant Attorney General

6

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY

7

Director

Office of Immigration Litigation

8

District Court Section

9

GISELA A. WESTWATER

10

Assistant Director

11

EREZ REUVENI

Senior Litigation Counsel

12

/s/ Stacey I. Young

13

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Bar #499324

Senior Litigation Counsel

14

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

15

Office of Immigration Litigation

16

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

17

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 598-2445

18

Fax: (202) 305-7000

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

19

20

21

22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

23 I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
24 Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of
25 record for the Plaintiffs.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

35

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71 Filed 03/14/17 Page 36 of 36

DATED this 14th day of March, 2017. 1

2

3

/s/ Stacey I. Young

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Nar #499324

4

Senior Litigation Counsel

United States Department of Justice

5

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

6

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

7

Washington, D.C. 20044

8

Telephone: (202) 305-7171 Fax: (202) 305-7000

9

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

36

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71-1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 2
DECLARATION OF CHLOE DYBDAHL
I, Chloe Dybdahl, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
1. I am employed by the United States Department of State as Chief of the Legal Affairs, Advisory Opinions Division of the Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs. In that capacity, I am authorized to search the electronic Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, for replicated records of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas adjudicated at U.S. embassies and consular posts overseas. I am also familiar with immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing procedures.
2. The Consular Consolidated Database ("CCD") contains replicated electronic data recording visa applications, visa interviews, and visas issued and refused at U.S. diplomatic and consular posts worldwide.
3. The CCD reflects that the following individuals have not yet applied for a visa:
• A.F.A. (related to Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI) is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition that is processing at the National Visa Center (NVC). The case is current awaiting submission of documents to NVC by the petitioner and applicant.
• G.E. (related to Reema Khaled DAHMAN) is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition classified by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as a family-based second preference (F2A) with a priority date of October 19, 2015. The April 2017 Visa Bulletin reflects that the priority date for the F2A classification is currently set at June 8, 2015, meaning that visas are available for individuals in the F2A category who have a priority date before June 8, 2015. As the applicant's priority date is after June 8, 2015, there is no visa number currently available. The case will remain at the NVC until a visa number is available.
• Seyedehfatemeh HAMEDANI (related to Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN) is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition classified by USCIS as F2A with a priority date of 14 April 2015. The CCD reflects that the case is current at NVC and is in the queue for visa application interview scheduling.
4. The CCD further reflects that the following individuals applied for immigrant visas and their applications were adjudicated and refused on the dates and grounds noted:
• Faduma Olad ISSA (related to Olad Issa Omar) made a visa application on March 13, 2017 and was refused under INA section 221 (g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA, and a Kenyan police certificate.
• F.O.I. (related to Olad Issa Omar) made a visa application on March 13,2017 and was refused under INA section 221 (g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA, form 1-864 Affidavit of Support, and the petitioner's 2015 U.S. tax returns.

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 71-1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 2

• S.O.I. (related to Olad Issa Omar) made a visa application on March 13,2017 and was refused under INA section 221 (g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA, and power of attorney such that Faduma Issa may represent him at the interview.
I declare under the penalty ofperjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 14,2017

~~
CHLOE DYBDAHL

2

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 8

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10
Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor;

11 Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh
12 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13 Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

14 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

15

Plaintiffs,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

16

v.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

17 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
18 General of the United States; U.S. 19 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of 21 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 22 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 23 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting 24 Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE 25 DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, 26 Acting Director of National Intelligence,

27

Defendants.

28

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 8

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

On March 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint addressing Executive Order

3 13780 (EO2), 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017), a second motion for class certification, and a

4 new motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. See Dkts. 52-

5 58. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions, Dkt. 65, Plaintiffs now submit this supplemental brief to

6
address the availability of injunctive relief on a non-certified class. As an initial matter, in other

7
challenges to Defendant Trump’s first Executive Order 13769 (EO1), 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1,

8
2017), district courts issued TROs on behalf of proposed class members prior to any class
9
certification. This is because those situations, like this one, fall within the classic domain of the
10
TRO, preserving the status quo of the matter subject to litigation and preventing irreparable harm
11
until a hearing can be held on the preliminary injunction. Granny Goose Foods, Inc., v.
12
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Moreover, courts
13

often provisionally certify classes for the purpose of granting injunctive relief, even while
14

requiring further briefing as to final class certification. Accordingly, the Court should grant
15

16 Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO.

II. ARGUMENT

17

A. Class Certification is Not Necessary to Issue Temporary Injunctive Relief.

18

This Court has equitable authority to issue a TRO prior to class certification. See, e.g.,

19 Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 705 (1979) (“Absent the clearest command to the contrary

20 from Congress, federal courts retain their equitable power to issue injunctions in suits over which
21
they have jurisdiction.”); Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946) (“Unless
22
otherwise provided by statute, all the inherent equitable powers of the [federal courts] are
23
available for the proper and complete exercise of that jurisdiction.”). See also, e.g., Rodriguez v.
24
Providence Cmty. Corr., Inc., 155 F. Supp. 3d 758, 767 (M.D. Tenn. 2015) (“Neither must
25
Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification in order to enjoin [on a class-wide basis] the conduct about
26
which they complain.”); Thomas v. Johnston, 557 F. Supp. 879, 916 n.29 (W.D. Tex. 1983)
27
(“[A] district court may, in its discretion, award appropriate classwide injunctive relief prior to a
28

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-1

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 8

1
formal ruling on the class certification issue based upon either a conditional certification of the
2
class or its general equity powers.”).
3
Given the exigencies surrounding EO1, at least three district courts issued expansive
4
TROs based on their inherent equitable authority and without first provisionally certifying a
5
class. See, e.g., Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 CIV. 480 (AMD), 2017 WL 388504, at *1
6
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017); Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. CV 17-10154-NMG, 2017 WL 386550, at
7
*1 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116, 2017 WL 386549, at *1 (E.D.
8
9 Va. Jan. 28, 2017). In Darweesh, based only on a complaint, motion for class certification, and
10 stay motion, the court granted a nationwide injunction staying the deportation of all individuals
11 covered by EO1. In Tootkaboni, based solely on a complaint containing class allegations and a
12 request for injunctive relief, the court issued a TRO ordering the government not to detain or
13 remove any individuals arriving at Logan Airport who, but for EO1, would be authorized to
14 enter. Similarly, in Aziz, based on a complaint containing class allegations, the district court

15 ordered the government to permit access to counsel for all lawful permanent residents detained at

16 Dulles Airport. Similarly, this Court has inherent authority to issue the TRO without certifying

17 the class Plaintiffs propose.1

18

B. Alternatively, the Court Should Provisionally Certify the Proposed Class.

19

1. Provisional Certification is Appropriate in This Case.

20

A court may provisionally certify a class in order to provide preliminary injunctive relief,

21 for “[t]he plain language of FRCP 23(b)(2) does not restrict class certification to instances when

22 final injunctive relief issues; it only requires that final injunctive relief be appropriate.” Meyer v.

23 Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming the district

24

25 1

To the extent EO2 is simply a continuation of EO1, mandamus is appropriate to maintain the integrity of

this Court’s earlier decision. See Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 824 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 1987) (“It is our mandate that

26 the INS flouts. We have the authority and the duty to preserve the effectiveness of our earlier judgment.”) (footnote

omitted); see also Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 135 F.3d 535, 541 (8th Cir. 1998), vacated on other grounds, 525 U.S.

27 1133 (1999) (“[Federal courts] have not only the power, but also a duty to enforce our prior mandate to prevent

evasion.”); Oswald v. McGarr, 620 F.2d 1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1980) (“Mandamus is appropriate to review

28 compliance with discretionary standards and nondiscretionary commands set forth in an earlier opinion concerning

the parties.”).

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-2

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 8

1
court’s authority to grant provisional class certification and preliminary injunctive relief); see
2
also Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1233, 1238 (9th Cir. 1999), supplemented, 236
3
F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court decision granting preliminary injunctive relief
4
and requiring notice to members of a provisionally certified class); R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F.
5
Supp. 3d 164, 183, 191 (D.D.C. 2015) (provisionally certifying class of immigrant detainees for
6
purpose of granting preliminary injunctive relief in challenge to government detention policy
7
under the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act,
8
9 and relevant regulations); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., No. CV-11-8557 CAS DTBX,
10 2012 WL 556309, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012), aff’d, 501 F. App’x 713 (9th Cir. 2012)
11 (“Pursuant to Rule 23 and the Court’s general equitable powers, the Court has authority to
12 provisionally certify a class for purposes of entering preliminary injunctive relief.”).2

13

To assess the propriety of provisional class certification, a court conducts the familiar

14 class certification analysis, looking to whether the moving party has satisfied the requirements of

15 Rule 23(a) and (b). See Meyer, 707 F.3d at 1041-43. “Its analysis is tempered, however, by the

16 understanding that such certifications may be altered or amended before the decision on the

17 merits.” R.I.L-R, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

18

Plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a). See

19 generally Dkt. 58. The proposed class involved here includes hundreds, if not thousands, of

20 individuals spread across the country and the globe, making their joinder impracticable. See Dkt.

21 58 at § III.A.1. The proposed class, moreover, satisfies both the requirements of commonality
22 and typicality. Named Plaintiffs and putative class members suffer a common injury: the
23
discriminatory, unlawful, and potentially indefinite suspension of their immigrant visa
24
adjudication and issuance, an injury which stems “from the same, injurious course of conduct,”
25
EO2, and its predecessor, EO1. See Dkt. 58 §§ III.A.3. They raise identical legal questions, the
26

27 2

Cf. Tolmasoff v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 16-11747, 2016 WL 3548219, at *6-9 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2016)

28 (declining to provisionally certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) because the claims at issue did not involve “a claim

for final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief.”).

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-3

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 8

1
answers to which will fully resolve the litigation. For example, one central claim is that the EOs
2
violate 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which guarantees all named Plaintiffs and putative class
3
members a visa adjudication and issuance process that is not discriminatory with regard to
4
nationality and country of origin. See Dkt. 53 § III.B.2.a. The EOs blatantly flout this obligation
5
and cause all named Plaintiffs and proposed class members the same injury, implicating the same
6
facts and legal framework. Proposed class members thus allege common harms based on a
7
shared core of facts and governing legal framework. See Dkt. 58 § III.A.2.3 There is no conflict
8
9 of interest between the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members: they all seek a declaration
10 from this Court that the EOs are unlawful and an injunction to halt implementation of EO2 to

11 prevent further harm. See Dkt. 58 § III.A.4. Lastly, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants

12 have subjected them, and will continue to subject them, to a nationwide policy harmful to their

13 rights and interests, necessitating such relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). See Dkt. 58 § III.B.4

14

2. Class-wide Emergency Relief is Imperative in This Case.

15

Provisional class certification is warranted. EO1 already has thrown the lives of named

16 Plaintiffs and putative class members into a state of disarray, and EO2 will wreak further havoc

17 on their lives because it will once again stop visa adjudication and issuance for what almost

18 certainly will be an indefinite period of time. None of the six countries is in a position to take the

19 steps necessary to ensure an end to the ban after the initial three-month period. See Dkt. 52 ¶¶

20 74-83. Moreover, even a three-month delay will cause irreparable harm—as families are

21 subjected to the anguish and emotional trauma of further separation, U.S. employers are left

22 without necessary workers, and foreign workers are without income. These harms are

23

24 3

Like EO1, EO2 purports to provide “hardship” waivers that will possibly result in the receipt, by some class

members, of immigrant visas. See EO1 § 3(g); EO2 § 3(c). The threshold showing for this waiver is ambiguous and

25 requires applicants to prove that they are not a security threat, and that granting a waiver is in the public interest.

See generally Dkt. 53 § II. The possibility of a discretionary waiver, however, is speculative at best and does not

26 eliminate substantial delay nor the serious threat of other irreparable harm Plaintiffs and proposed class members

currently face, as there is no guarantee they will be granted a waiver no matter how strong their equities or evidence

27 is. Moreover, that a possible remedy for Defendants’ unlawful actions may exist for some limited number of class

members is not enough to undermine commonality. See Dkt. 58 at 20-21.

28 4

Thus, at a minimum, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that provisional certification is appropriate as to their

claim that the EOs violate the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-4

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 6 of 8

1
exacerbated when the foreign national is left in a vulnerable position where their very life may be
2
in jeopardy due to the lack of security in their native country.
3
Defendants may assert that those class members whose visa interviews already have been
4
scheduled will not be affected by EO2, but that is simply not the case. Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar’s
5
children—Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I.—had their visa interviews yesterday, March 13,
6
2017. However, their immigrant visa applications are still pending, as they were asked to submit
7
additional information, including DNA tests, and thus, the final adjudication of those visa
8
9 applications will be suspended starting March 16, 2017. See Ex. A. Absent this Court’s
10 intervention, these children—and others like them—will be indefinitely separated from their
11 parents. Additionally, proposed class members with pending scheduled interviews also face the
12 agonizing choice of whether to spend substantial amounts of money, at times going into great
13 debt, to make arrangements to travel to third countries to appear at consular interviews where the

14 government already has determined they are prima facie ineligible for an immigrant visa absent

15 some arduous, ambiguous, wholly discretionary process. Moreover, Defendants have provided

16 no information about how long it will take to make waiver decisions, nor what happens to

17 proposed class members who either do not meet the ambiguous criteria or if the government

18 simply denies in the exercise of discretion. What is more, the government has not scheduled
19 interviews for most proposed class members and, thus, these individuals face further indefinite
20 separation while waiting to see when, if ever, adjudication of their applications will resume.
21 Thus, they undoubtedly face the prospect of indefinite separation from spouses, parents, children,
22 and employment relationships. A TRO is thus necessary.
23
III. CONCLUSION
24
Thus, this Court has the authority to either grant a TRO based on its inherent equitable
25
authority or to provisionally certify the proposed class in order to grant the necessary relief.
26
Dated this 14th of March, 2017.
27
Respectfully submitted,
28

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-5

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 7 of 8

1

2 s/ Matt Adams Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287
3

s/ Mary Kenney Mary Kenney, pro hac vice

4 s/ Glenda Aldana

s/ Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, pro hac vice

5 46987

6 s/ Maria Lucia Chavez

s/ Melissa Crow Melissa Crow, pro hac vice

7 Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL

8 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200

9

615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 507-7512

10 (206) 957-8611

(202) 742-5619 (fax)

(206) 587-4025 (fax)

11

s/ Trina Realmuto 12 Trina Realmuto, pro hac vice

13
s/ Kristin Macleod-Ball 14 Kristin Macleod-Ball, pro hac vice

15

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT

16 OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

14 Beacon Street, Suite 602

17 Boston, MA 02108

(617) 227-9727 18 (617) 227-5495 (fax)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-6

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72 Filed 03/14/17 Page 8 of 8

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on March 14, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the

4 attorneys of record for all Defendants.

5

Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 14, 2017.

6
s/ Glenda Aldana
7 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 8 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
9 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 957-8646
10 (206) 587-4025 (fax)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

-7

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72-1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

8

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72-1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 3

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 72-1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 3

PLS.’ SUPP. BR. ISO THEIR MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 9

1

Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10
Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI; A.F.A., a minor;

11 Reema Khaled DAHMAN; G.E., a minor; Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN; Seyedehfatemeh
12 HAMEDANI; Olad Issa OMAR; Faduma

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13 Olad ISSA; F.O.I., a minor; and S.O.I., a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals DECLARATION OF MARIA LUCIA

14 and on behalf of others similarly situated,

CHAVEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

15

Plaintiffs,

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

16

v.

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

17 Donald TRUMP, President of the United States of America; Jefferson B. SESSIONS, Attorney
18 General of the United States; U.S. 19 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; Rex W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; U.S. 20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; John F. KELLY, Secretary of 21 Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 22 IMMIGRATION SERVICES; Lori
SCIALABBA, Acting Director of USCIS; 23 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION;
Kevin K. McALEENAN, Acting 24 Commissioner of CBP; OFFICE OF THE 25 DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE; Michael DEMPSEY, 26 Acting Director of National Intelligence,

27 Defendants.
28

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 9

1
I, Maria Lucia Chavez, declare as follows:

2
1.

I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this case. I submit this declaration in support of

3

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction,

4

Dkt. 53.
5

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness, I could
6

and would testify completely as set forth below.
7

3. I am an attorney in the Family Services Unit at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in
8

9 Seattle, Washington, where my primary focus is assisting individuals in family-based petitions

10 and immigrant visa applications.

11

Plaintiffs Olad Issa Omar, Faduma Olad Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I.

12 4. I represent Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar and his three children, Plaintiff Faduma Olad Issa,

13 Plaintiff F.O.I., and Plaintiff S.O.I. in connection with their immigrant visa applications.

14 5. Plaintiff Omar, a U.S. citizen, filed separate immigrant visa petitions on Form I-130 on

15 behalf of each of his three children, who are citizens of Somalia, born in Kenya.

16 6. Upon approval of three immigrant visa petitions, Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I.

17 immigrant visa numbers were immediately available to them as immediate relatives of a U.S.

18 citizen (category IR2) and thus, they were eligible to apply for immigrant visas. Plaintiffs Issa,

19 F.O.I., and S.O.I. were scheduled to attend their immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in

20 Nairobi in November 2016, but that interview was cancelled and they were asked to reschedule

21 another immigrant visa interview and pay the immigrant visa application fee in person at the

22 U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. Before the announcement of the first Executive Order (EO1), they

23
were scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on March 20, 2017. Due to EO1, the State

24
Department subsequently cancelled the March 20 interview.

25
7.

On March 13, 2017, Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I. attended a rescheduled immigrant

26
visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi.

27

28 CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT.
FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 9

1
8.

On March 13, 2017, after Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I. attended their immigrant visa

2
interview, I checked the immigrant visa case status of Plaintiff Issa, the oldest of the three
3
children, by accessing the Consular Electronic Application Center (“CEAC”) of the U.S.
4
Department of State, available at https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx. Her case
5
information was last updated on March 13, 2017 and the status is “Administrative Processing.”
6

See Ex. A.
7

9. I also checked the immigrant visa case status of Plaintiffs F.O.I. and S.O.I. The CEAC
8

9 database indicates that each of their cases was last updated on March 13, 2017 and the case status

10 is “Ready.” See Exs. B and C.

11 10. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I. attended their immigrant visa

12 interview together. At their immigrant visa interview, they were given two documents. The first

13 advised their immigrant visas had been refused under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and

14 Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), requesting further information related to each of

15 their individual cases. See Ex. D. The second document “recommended” DNA test results for all

16 three children to confirm their relation to their father, Plaintiff Omar. See Ex. E. While the notice

17 they received notes that it is “recommended” that the children provide DNA test results, in my

18 experience, when this information is not provided, the consular officer will deny the visa

19 application, so a “recommendation” is in fact a requirement.

20 11. Also in my experience, although the CEAC status update indicates F.O.I.’s and S.O.I.’s

21 immigrant visa cases as being “Ready,” they are also in “Administrative Processing,” like their

22 sister Plaintiff Issa’s immigrant visa case.

23
12. When a case status is listed as in “Administrative Processing”, it does not mean a visa

24
applicant has received a final adjudication of their immigrant visa application. Further, a visa

25
“refusal” under INA § 221(g) does not mean the adjudication of an immigrant visa application

26

has concluded and they now have to reapply for an immigrant visa all over again. Having a visa

27

refused under Section 221(g) of the INA “means that the consular officer did not have all of the

28

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 2

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 9

1
information required to determine if you are eligible to receive a visa. This means you are not
2
eligible for the visa now, but your case is pending further action for one of the following
3
reasons…” See Ex. F at 3. One of those reasons can be “Administrative Processing.” See id. In
4
my experience, the U.S. Department of State uses the terms “refused” and “denied”
5
interchangeably. See, e.g., Ex. F at 2.
6
13. The consular officer is asking Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I. to provide the missing
7
documents or information for the adjudication of their immigrant visa application. In fact,
8
9 according to the U.S. Department of State’s information, under Visa Denials, “[a]fter submitting
10 the documentation, your visa application can then be processed to conclusion to determine
11 whether you qualify for a visa. You have one year from the date you were refused a visa to
12 submit the additional information.” See Ex. F at 3.
13 14. The State Department, through the consular officer, has asked Plaintiff Issa to provide a

14 Kenyan police certificate and “recommending” that she provide DNA test results. See Exs. D and

15 E.

16 15. The State Department, through the consular officer, has asked Plaintiff F.O.I. to provide

17 Form I-864, Affidavit of Financial Support, along with her father and petitioner Plaintiff Omar’s

18 2015 or 2016 tax return transcripts, and is “recommending” that she provide DNA test results.

19 See id. The consular officer is asking Plaintiff F.O.I. to provide Form I-864 because she soon

20 will turn 18 years old and, due to the DNA test result request which can take months to obtain,

21 and her Form I-864W, Request for Exemption for Intending Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support,

22 will no longer be considered. Turning 18 years old in a couple of months would also require

23
Plaintiff F.O.I. to submit a police certificate.

24
16. The State Department, through the consular officer, has asked Plaintiff S.O.I. to provide a

25
power of attorney signed by their father, Plaintiff Omar, to allow his sister, Plaintiff Issa, to

26

represent him in his interview given that I.S.O. is a minor, and is “recommending” that he

27

provide DNA test results. See id.

28

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 3

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 9

1
17. Provided the second Executive Order (EO2) does not suspend, delay, or negatively
2
impact the immigrant visa process, after submitting the requested documents and information,
3
the U.S. Embassy will proceed with its adjudication of the immigrant visa applications of
4
Plaintiffs Issa, F.O.I., and S.O.I. In my experience, this means that the U.S. Embassy
5
subsequently would issue them immigrant visas (in a sealed envelope known as an immigrant
6
visa packet).
7
Plaintiffs Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and A.F.A.
8
9 18. I also represent Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali and her son, Plaintiff A.F.A., in the child’s
10 immigrant visa application.
11 19. Plaintiff Ali, a U.S. citizen, filed a family-based immigrant visa petition (Form I-130) on
12 behalf of Plaintiff A.F.A., who is a citizen of Somalia, born in Somalia.
13 20. Upon approval of the family visa petition, as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen

14 (category IR2), an immigrant visa number was immediately available to Plaintiff A.F.A., and

15 thus, he was immediately eligible to apply for an immigrant visa .

16 21. The civil documents related to A.F.A.’s case were mailed to the National Visa Center

17 (“NVC”) on January 20, 2017 via United Parcel Service, and received by the NVC on January

18 27, 2017. See Ex. G. Also on January 20, 2017, A.F.A.’s Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa

19 Electronic Application, was completed and electronically submitted. See Ex. H. Therefore,

20 A.F.A. has submitted an immigrant visa application, the adjudication of which is pending. He is

21 waiting for the U.S. Embassy to schedule his immigrant visa interview.

22 22. Provided EO2 does not suspend, delay or negatively impact the immigrant visa process,

23
the U.S. Embassy will proceed with its adjudication of Plaintiff A.F.A.’s immigrant visa

24
application.

25
Plaintiffs Reema Khaled Dahman and G.E.

26

23. I also represent Plaintiff Reema Khaled Dahman and her son, Plaintiff G.E., in the child’s

27

immigrant visa application.

28

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 4

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 9

1
24. Plaintiff Dahman, a lawful permanent resident, filed a family-based immigrant visa
2
petition (Form I-130) on behalf of Plaintiff G.E., who is a citizen of Syrian, born in Syria.
3
25. Plaintiff G.E. has a Priority Date (category F2A) of October 19, 2015, the date Plaintiff
4
Dahman’s Form I-130 was filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. When a
5
priority date is current it means that an immigrant visa number is available and the person then is
6
eligible to apply for an immigrant visa. Pursuant to the Visa Bulletin published monthly by the
7
U.S. Department of State, Plaintiff G.E.’s Priority Date is not yet current as reflected in Chart A,
8
9 Final Action Dates for Family-Sponsored Preference Cases, of the April 2017 Visa Bulletin. See
10 Ex. I at 2. However, Chart B, Dates for Filing Family-Sponsored Visa Applications, reflects G.E.
11 has a Priority Date earlier than the application date and that he was eligible to submit required
12 documents to the National Visa Center, following receipt of notification from the National Visa
13 Center. See id at 3. Chart B indicates the F2A category is at November 22, 2015 (22NOV15),

14 and G.E.’s Priority Date is that of October 19, 2015 (19OCT15). See id. The National Visa

15 Center sent notification on July 22, 2016 for the required processing fees ($120 and $325) to be

16 paid. Once the fees were paid, the civil documents related to Plaintiff G.E. were e-mailed to

17 nvcelectronic@state.gov on December 2, 2016. Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa Electronic

18 Application, was also completed and electronically submitted on December 2, 2016. See Ex. J.

19 On March 9, 2017, a copy of G.E.’s Syrian Judicial Record Extract was emailed to

20 nvcelectronic@state.gov, as requested by the National Visa Center on December 8, 2016.

21 26. Provided EO2 does not suspend, delay or negatively impact the immigrant visa process,

22 the U.S. Embassy will proceed with adjudicating G.E.’s already submitted immigrant visa

23
application. In my experience, G.E.’s Priority Date should become current in about four months

24
and this will be reflected in Chart A of the Visa Bulletin for that specific month.

25
Supporting evidence

26

27. Where the following exhibits include names of minors or confidential information, I have

27

redacted that information.

28

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 5

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 7 of 9

1
28. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the printout of Plaintiff Issa’s
2
Immigrant Visa Application case status via the CEAC of the U.S. Department of State, available
3
at https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx. Her case was last updated on March 13,
4
2017. I accessed the database on March 13, 2017, March 14, 2017, and March 15, 2017.
5
29. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a printout of Plaintiff F.I.O.’s
6
Immigrant Visa Application case status via the CEAC of the U.S. Department of State, available
7
at https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx. Her case was last updated on March 13,
8
9 2017. I accessed the database on March 13, 2017, March 14, 2017, and March 15, 2017.
10 30. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a printout of Plaintiff S.I.O.’s
11 Immigrant Visa Application case status via the CEAC of the U.S. Department of State, available
12 at https://ceac.state.gov/ceacstattracker/status.aspx. His case was last updated on March 13,
13 2017. I accessed the database on March 13, 2017, March 14, 2017, and March 15, 2017.

14 31. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of U.S. Embassy Nairobi Document,

15 dated March 13, 2017, requesting further information and documentation for Plaintiffs Issa,

16 F.O.I., and S.O.I.

17 32. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of U.S. Embassy Nairobi Document,

18 dated March 13, 2017, recommending DNA testing.

19 33. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of U.S. Department of State information

20 on Visa Denials, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/denials.html. I

21 accessed the database on March 14, 2017 and March 15, 2017.

22 34. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of UPS Delivery Receipt regarding

23
A.F.A.’s civil document submission to the National Visa Center, delivered on January 27, 2017.

24
I accessed the database on March 14, 2017.

25
35. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Form DS-260 Confirmation Page

26

relating to A.F.A.’s submitted Immigrant Visa Application. I accessed the database on January

27

20, 2017.

28

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 6

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 8 of 9

1
36. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of U.S. Department of State’s Visa
2
Bulletin for April 2017, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-
3
policy/bulletin/2017/visa-bulletin-for-april-2017.html. I accessed the database on March 15,
4
2017.
5
37. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy Form DS-260 Confirmation Page
6
relating to G.E.’s submitted Immigrant Visa Application. I accessed the database on December 2,
7

2016.
8

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

10 true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

11

12

Executed on this 15th day of March, 2017, in Seattle, Washington.

13

By:

14

s/ Maria Lucia Chavez

15

Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

16

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

17

(206) 957-8611

18

(206) 587-4025 (fax)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT.
FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 7

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74 Filed 03/15/17 Page 9 of 9

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on March 15, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the 4 attorneys of record for all Defendants.
5

6

Executed in Seattle, Washington, on March 15, 2017.

7
s/ Glenda Aldana 8 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No. 46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 9 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
10 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 957-8646
11 (206) 587-4025 (fax)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.’ MOT.
FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Ave., Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98104

- 8

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 34
EXHIBIT A

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

9

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

10

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 34
EXHIBIT B

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

11

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 34
EXHIBIT C

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

14

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 7 of 34
EXHIBIT D

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

15

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 8 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

16

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 9 of 34
EXHIBIT E

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

17

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 10 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

18

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 11 of 34
EXHIBIT F

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

19

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumentVi7sa4D-1enialsFiled 03/15/17 Page 12 of 34

Important Notice

Executive Order on Visas ­ Important Announcement

Important Announcement travel.state.gov U.S. Passports &

Students Abroad U.S. Visa Intercountry Adoption International Parental |

International Travel

Child Abduction

Contact Us

close
Find U.S. Embassies & Consulates

travel.state.gov > Visas > Visa Denials
Visa Denials

Set Location Set Nationality Print Email

U.S. law generally requires visa applicants to be interviewed by a consular officer at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. After relevant information is reviewed, the application is approved or denied, based on standards established in U.S. law.
While the vast majority of visa applications are approved, U.S. law sets out many standards under which a visa application may be denied. An application may be denied because the consular officer does not have all of the information required to determine if the applicant is eligible to receive a visa, because the applicant does not qualify for the visa category for which he or she applied, or because the information reviewed indicates the applicant falls within the scope of one of the inadmissibility or ineligibility grounds of the law. An applicant’s current and/or past actions, such as drug or criminal activities, as examples, may make the applicant ineligible for a visa.
If denied a visa, in most cases the applicant is notified of the section of law which applies. Visa applicants are also advised by the consular officer if they may apply for a waiver of their ineligibility. Several of the most common reasons for visa ineligibilities are explained below. For more information, review the visa ineligibilities in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Collapse All
How does a visa applicant qualify for a visa?
You, as a visa applicant, qualify for a visa by being eligible under all applicable U.S. laws for the visa category for which you are applying. During your visa interview, the consular officer at the U.S Embassy or Consulate will determine if you are qualified for the type of visa for which you are applying.
The sole authority to approve or deny (called adjudicate) visa applications, under U.S. immigration law section 104(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act , is given to consular officers at U.S. Embassies and Consulates.
What does being found ineligible mean?

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. https://travel.sCtaates.egoNvo/c.o2n:t1e7nt-/cvvis-a0s0/1en3/5g-eJnLeRral/denials.html

20

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

1/6

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumentVi7sa4D-1enialsFiled 03/15/17 Page 13 of 34

If a consular officer finds you are not eligible to receive a visa under U.S. law, your visa application will be denied (refused), and you will be provided a reason for the denial. There are many reasons a visa applicant could be found ineligible for a visa.

These reasons, called ineligibilities, are listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other immigration laws.

Some ineligibilities can be overcome, either by you, the visa applicant, or the U.S. petitioner, in certain immigrant visa

cases. Other ineligibilities are permanent. This means that every time you apply for a visa, you will be found ineligible under

the same section of law, unless a waiver of that ineligibility is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security. Learn

about waivers of ineligibility.

Here are some examples of visa ineligibilities, with INA references, which are explained further below.

The visa applicant:

Did not fully complete the visa application and/or provide all required supporting documentation ­ INA section 221(g) Did not establish eligibility for the visa category being applied for or overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant ­ INA section 214(b) Was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude ­ INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) Was convicted of a drug violation ­ INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) Has two or more criminal convictions for which the total sentence of confinement was 5 years or more ­ INA section 212(a) (2)(B) Did not demonstrate proof of adequate financial support in the United States; therefore denied under public charge ­ INA section 212(a)(4) Misrepresented a material fact or committed fraud to attempt to receive a visa – INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Previously remained longer than authorized in the United States ­ INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)

For a complete list of all visa ineligibilities contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act, see Ineligibilities and Waivers: Laws.

I was found ineligible for a visa. Can I get my money back? No. The fee that you paid is a non­refundable application processing fee.

Can I reapply for a visa?
After being found ineligible for a visa, you may reapply in the future. If you reapply for a visa after being found ineligible, with the exception of 221(g) refusals, you must submit a new visa application and pay the visa application fee again. If you were found ineligible under section 214(b) of the INA, you should be able to present evidence of significant changes in circumstances since your last application. See more information below under INA section 214(b).

Can a friend or relative inquire about my denied visa application?
Department of State visa case records are confidential under INA section 222(f), so information can only be provided to visa applicants, with some exceptions. Certain information can be provided to U.S. sponsors, attorneys representing visa applicants, members of Congress, or other persons acting on behalf of and with the permission of applicants.

INA Section 221(g) ­ Incomplete Application or Supporting Documentation

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. https://travel.sCtaates.egoNvo/c.o2n:t1e7nt-/cvvis-a0s0/1en3/5g-eJnLeRral/denials.html

21

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

2/6

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumentVi7sa4D-1enialsFiled 03/15/17 Page 14 of 34

What does a visa denial under INA section 221(g) mean?

A visa denial under section 221(g) of the INA means that the consular officer did not have all of the information required to determine if you are eligible to receive a visa. This means you are not eligible for the visa now, but your case is pending further action for one of the following reasons:

Your application is incomplete and/or further documentation is required ­ Applicants whose application forms or other documentation are incomplete are refused. If further documents are required to complete your case, you will be informed what is needed and how to provide it to the embassy or consulate. You will also be given a letter stating your application has been denied under 221(g) and listing which documents you need to provide. Administrative processing ­ Further administrative processing of your application is required before a decision can be made regarding your eligibility for a visa. You will be given a letter stating this and next­step instructions after the administrative processing is complete.

Is there something I can do about a refusal under section 221(g)?
If your application was denied because documentation or information is missing, you can provide the missing documents or information as soon as possible. After submitting the documentation, your visa application can then be processed to conclusion to determine whether you qualify for a visa. You have one year from the date you were refused a visa to submit the additional information. Otherwise, if you do not provide the required additional information within one year, you must reapply for the visa and pay another application fee.
If your application requires further administrative processing, this takes additional time after your interview. Processing times can vary based on individual circumstances. For more information, review Administrative Processing.

INA Section 214(b) ­ Visa Qualifications and Immigrant Intent
What does a visa denial under INA section 214(b) mean?
This law applies only to nonimmigrant visa categories. If you are refused a visa under section 214(b), it means that you:
Did not sufficiently demonstrate to the consular officer that you qualify for the nonimmigrant visa category you applied for; and/or Did not overcome the presumption of immigrant intent, required by law, by sufficiently demonstrating that you have strong ties to your home country that will compel you to leave the United States at the end of your temporary stay. (H­1B and L visa applicants, along with their spouse and any minor children, are excluded from this requirement.)

What are considered strong ties to my home country?
Ties are the various aspects of your life that bind you to your home country. Strong ties vary from country to country, city to city, and person to person, but examples include:
Your job; Your home; and/or Your relationships with family and friends.
While conducting visa interviews, consular officers look at each application individually and consider the applicant's circumstances, travel plans, financial resources, and ties outside of the United States that will ensure the applicant’s departure after a temporary visit.
Is a refusal under section 214(b) permanent?
No. A refusal, or ineligibility, under section 214(b) is for that specific application, so once a case is closed, the consular section cannot take any further action. There is no appeal process. If you feel there is additional information that should be considered related to the visa decision, or there are significant changes in your circumstances since your last application, you may reapply for a visa. To reapply, you must complete a new application form, pay the application fee, and schedule an appointment for a new interview. Review the website of the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where you plan to reapply to learn about any reapplication procedures.

INA Section 212(a)(4) ­ Public Charge
CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. https://travel.sCtaates.egoNvo/c.o2n:t1e7nt-/cvvis-a0s0/1en3/5g-eJnLeRral/denials.html

22

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

3/6

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumentVi7sa4D-1enialsFiled 03/15/17 Page 15 of 34

Why was I refused under INA section 212(a)(4)? What is meant by “public charge”?

Visa applicants need to satisfy this provision of law by demonstrating proof of adequate financial support in the United States. A visa refusal, or ineligibility, under section 212(a)(4) of the INA means that the consular officer determined that you are likely to become a public charge in the United States. Public charge means that the consular officer determined that you are likely to become primarily dependent on the U.S. government for your existence and financial support in the United States.

Is a refusal under section 212(a)(4) permanent?
A refusal, or ineligibility, under section 212(a)(4) can be overcome in certain circumstances, as explained below.
Immigrants ­ Most immigrant visa applicants are required to submit an Affidavit of Support (Form I­864, I­864A, I­864W, or I­864EZ, as applicable) from the U.S. sponsors who filed petitions for them. If your U.S. sponsor does not meet the requirements of the Affidavit of Support, you may present a second Affidavit of Support from a qualifying joint sponsor. Learn more about the Affidavit of Support .
Some categories of immigrant visa applicants are not required to have Affidavits of Support. These are categories where no U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative filed a petition on your behalf, including most employment­based immigrants and diversity visa (DV) applicants.
If you are applying for an immigrant visa category where the Affidavit of Support Form is not required, the following are examples of how you could demonstrate to the consular officer that you will have financial support in the United States:
Your own personal funds; A job offer in the United States; and/or Sponsorship from a U.S. resident.

Examples of sponsorship from a U.S. resident include:
A letter from the U.S. resident stating financial support of you while in the United States; Documents showing that the U.S. resident can financially support you, such as bank statements or pay stubs; and/or An Affidavit of Support (Form I­134).

The consular officer will review the additional evidence of financial support you submit to determine whether it is sufficient to overcome your ineligibility under section 212(a)(4).
Nonimmigrants ­ You must demonstrate sufficient financial support during your temporary stay in the United States. Public charge denials are less frequent for nonimmigrant visa applications, but can occur, for example, in the case of a visa applicant seeking medical treatment in the United States without adequate funds to pay for treatment. Learn more about applying for a visitor visa for medical treatment.
In order to overcome a denial for public charge reasons, you must demonstrate you will have sufficient financial support in the United States. The consular officer will review the additional evidence you submit to determine whether it is sufficient to overcome your ineligibility under section 212(a)(4).

INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) ­ Fraud and Misrepresentation
What does a denial under INA section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) mean?
You were refused, or found ineligible, for a visa under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) because you attempted to receive a visa or enter the United States by willfully misrepresenting a material fact or committing fraud. This is a permanent ineligibility, so every time you apply for a visa, you will be found ineligible for this reason.
You will be advised by the consular officer if you can apply for a waiver of this ineligibility. Review Waivers of Ineligibility for more information.

What is meant by misrepresentation of a material fact?

Misrepresentation means that you falsely presented facts and were not truthful in an attempt to receive a visa or enter the United States. A fact is considered material, as it pertains to this section of the INA, when, had the truth been known, you would not have been eligible to receive a visa or enter the United States.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT.

23

INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) ­ Unlawful Presence in the United States

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

https://travel.sCtaates.egoNvo/c.o2n:t1e7nt-/cvvis-a0s0/1en3/5g-eJnLeRral/denials.html

Seattle, WA 98104

4/6

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumentVi7sa4D-1enialsFiled 03/15/17 Page 16 of 34

What does a denial under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) mean?

You were refused, or found ineligible for, a visa under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) because you were considered to have been unlawfully present in the United States, if:

You stayed in the United States after the expiration date for the period of stay authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for you, without the required authorization to extend your stay; or You entered and were present in the United States without receiving the required authorization from CBP.

When denied a visa for unlawful presence, you are ineligible for a visa for the following length of time:
When unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days or longer but less than one year, you are ineligible for a visa for 3 years after departure from the United States; or When unlawfully present in the United States for one year or longer, you are ineligible for a visa for 10 years after departure from the United States.

You will be advised by the consular officer if you can apply for a waiver of this ineligibility. Review Waivers of Ineligibility for more information.

List of Ineligibilities
This webpage discusses some of the more common visa ineligibilities. For a complete list of visa ineligibilities and more information from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and amended laws, review Ineligibilities and Waivers: Laws on this site.

Waivers of Ineligibility
What is a waiver?
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains provisions that may allow a visa applicant who was denied a visa for a particular ineligibility to apply for a waiver of that ineligibility. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adjudicates all waivers of ineligibility. Waivers are discretionary, meaning that there are no guarantees that DHS will approve a waiver for you. If the waiver is approved, you may be issued a visa.
Can every applicant who is ineligible apply for a waiver?
No. If you are found ineligible for a visa, the consular officer will inform you if can apply for a waiver of ineligibility. The following factors will determine if you may apply for a waiver:
Whether a waiver of ineligibility is available for the particular section of law you are ineligible under; You must be fully qualified for the visa you applied for, except for that specific ineligibility, in order to be able to apply for the waiver; If you are applying for a nonimmigrant visa, generally whether the consular officer who found you ineligible recommends to DHS that you receive a waiver; and If you are applying for an immigrant visa, whether a waiver is available for your particular situation. (For example, for certain visa ineligibilities when applying for an immigrant visa, you can only apply for a waiver if you have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent who would endure extreme hardship if you were not able to immigrate.)

How do I apply for a waiver?
If you can apply for a waiver, the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate where you applied will inform you how to apply.
Immigrant Visa and K Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants ­ If you can apply for a waiver, you must mail Form I­601 , Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, directly to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Lockbox facility, with few exceptions. Learn more on the USCIS website.

Further Questions I was found ineligible for a visa, and I have further questions. Who should I contact?

You sChoHuAldVEcoZnDtaEcCt Lth. IeSUO.SPL. SE.m' MbaOsTs.y or Consulate where you 2a4pplied. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

https://travel.sCtaates.egoNvo/c.o2n:t1e7nt-/cvvis-a0s0/1en3/5g-eJnLeRral/denials.html

Seattle, WA 98104

5/6

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumentVi7sa4D-1enialsFiled 03/15/17 Page 17 of 34
More Information
A­Z Index Latest News What is a U.S. Visa? Diversity Visa Program Visa Waiver Program Fraud Warning Find a U.S. Embassy or Consulate Straight Facts on U.S. Visas
In the United States
VisitTheUSA
FAQs: About Visas ­ the Basics

About Us Visa Newsroom Reports and Statistics Law and Policy

Find a U.S. Embassy or Consulate Contact Us Careers Consular Notification and Access

STAY CONNECTED
Dipnote Blog Facebook Flickr

@travelgov Youtube RSS

travel.state.gov

U.S. Passports & International Travel

Students Abroad

U.S. Visa

Intercountry Adoption

International Parental Child Abduction

Privacy Copyright & Disclaimer FOIA No FEAR Act Data Office of the Inspector General USA.gov GobiernoUSA.gov This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. https://travel.sCtaates.egoNvo/c.o2n:t1e7nt-/cvvis-a0s0/1en3/5g-eJnLeRral/denials.html

25

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

6/6

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 18 of 34
EXHIBIT G

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

26

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

3/14/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR DocumUPeSn: Ttra7c4kin-g1InfoFrmilaetiodn 03/15/17 Page 19 of 34

Proof of Delivery

Close Window

Dear Customer,

This notice serves as proof of delivery for the shipment listed below.

Tracking Number: Service: Weight: Shipped/Billed On: Delivered On: Delivered To: Received By: Left At:

1ZR UPS Ground 1.00 lb 01/20/2017 01/27/2017 9:56 A.M. PORTSMOUTH, NH, US THIBIDEAU Inside Delivery

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

UPS

Tracking results provided by UPS: 03/14/2017 8:34 P.M. ET

Print This Page

Close Window

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT.

27

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

https://wwwapCpass.uepNs.coo. m2:/1W7e-cbvT-r0a0ck1i3n5g-/pJrLoRcessPOD?Requester=UPSHome&tracknum=1ZR035W50393559509&refNumbers=&locS=eeantt_lUe,SWA 98104

1/1

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 20 of 34
EXHIBIT H

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

28

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 21 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

29

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 22 of 34
EXHIBIT I

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

30

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 23 of 34

United States Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs

VISA BULLETIN

Number 4 Volume X

Washington, D.C. IMMIGRANT NUMBERS FOR APRIL 2017

A. STATUTORY NUMBERS

This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during April for: “Final Action Dates” and “Dates for Filing Applications,” indicating when immigrant visa applicants should be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to the National Visa Center.

Unless otherwise indicated on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website at www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo, individuals seeking to file applications for adjustment of status with USCIS in the Department of Homeland Security must use the “Final Action Dates” charts below for determining when they can file such applications. When USCIS determines that there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas, USCIS will state on its website that applicants may instead use the “Dates for Filing Visa Applications” charts in this Bulletin.

1. Procedures for determining dates. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas; USCIS reports applicants for adjustment of status. Allocations in the charts below were made, to the extent possible, in chronological order of reported priority dates, for demand received by March 9th. If not all demand could be satisfied, the category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed oversubscribed. The final action date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within the numerical limits. If it becomes necessary during the monthly allocation process to retrogress a final action date, supplemental requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls within the new final action date announced in this bulletin. If at any time an annual limit were reached, it would be necessary to immediately make the preference category “unavailable”, and no further requests for numbers would be honored.

2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.

3. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based

preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition

in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and

children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same

order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The

visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign

state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These

provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas:

CHINA-mCaHiAnVlEaZnDdECbL.oIrSOn,PLSE.'LMOSTA. LVADOR, GUATEMAL31A, HONDUNROARST,HWIENSTDIIMAM,IGMREAXNITCROIG,HTPSHPIRLOIJEPCPTINES.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 24 of 34

-2-

April 2017

4. Section 203(a) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Family-sponsored immigrant visas as follows:

FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers:

A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

A. FINAL ACTION DATES FOR FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCE CASES
On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are authorized for issuance to all qualified applicants; and "U" means unauthorized, i.e., numbers are not authorized for issuance. (NOTE: Numbers are authorized for issuance only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the final action date listed below.)

All Chargeability Areas Except Those Family- Listed Sponsored

CHINAmainland born

INDIA

MEXICO

PHILIPPINES

F1

15OCT10

15OCT10

15OCT10

22MAY95 15JAN06

F2A

08JUN15

08JUN15

08JUN15

22MAY15 08JUN15

F2B

15SEP10

15SEP10

15SEP10

22DEC95 15JUN06

F3

15MAY05

15MAY05

15MAY05

08JAN95 15SEP94

F4

08MAY04

08MAY04

15AUG03

15JUN97 08SEP93

*NOTE: For April, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are authorized for

issuance to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than

22MAY15. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are authorized for issuance to

applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning

22MAY15 and earlier than 08JUN15. All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt

from the per-country limit.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT.

32

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 25 of 34

-3-

April 2017

B. DATES FOR FILING FAMILY-SPONSORED VISA APPLICATIONS
The chart below reflects dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process. Applicants for immigrant visas who have a priority date earlier than the application date in the chart below may assemble and submit required documents to the Department of State’s National Visa Center, following receipt of notification from the National Visa Center containing detailed instructions. The application date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who cannot submit documentation to the National Visa Center for an immigrant visa. If a category is designated “current,” all applicants in the relevant category may file applications, regardless of priority date.
The “C” listing indicates that the category is current, and that applications may be filed regardless of the applicant’s priority date. The listing of a date for any category indicates that only applicants with a priority date which is earlier than the listed date may file their application.
Visit www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo for information on whether USCIS has determined that this chart can be used (in lieu of the chart in paragraph 4.A.) this month for filing applications for adjustment of status with USCIS.

FamilySponsored
F1 F2A F2B F3 F4

All Chargeability CHINA-

Areas Except mainland

Those Listed

born

01JAN11

01JAN11

22NOV15

22NOV15

08FEB11

08FEB11

22AUG05

22AUG05

01JUL04

01JUL04

INDIA

MEXICO

01JAN11 22NOV15 08FEB11 22AUG05 01MAY04

01JUN95 22NOV15 01JUN96 01MAY95 01DEC97

PHILIPPINES
01MAY06 22NOV15 01FEB07 01JAN95 01APR94

5. Section 203(b) of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of Employment-based immigrant visas as follows:

EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES

First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.

Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.

Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "*Other Workers".

Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.

Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of

which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and

3,000 sCeHtAVaEsZiDdEeCL.fIoSOr PLiSn.'vMeOsTt. ors in regional 3c3 enters NbOyRTSHeWcE.ST 6IM1M0IGoRfANPTuRbIG.HTLS.PR1O0JE2C-T395.

FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ.

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 26 of 34

-4-

April 2017

A. FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES
On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are authorized for issuance to all qualified applicants; and "U" means unauthorized, i.e., numbers are not authorized for issuance. (NOTE: Numbers are authorized for issuance only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the final action date listed below.)

All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed EmploymentBased

CHINAmainland born

EL SALVADOR GUATEMALA HONDURAS

INDIA

MEXICO PHILIPPINES

1st

C

C

C

C

C

C

2nd

C

15JAN13

C

22JUN08

C

C

3rd

15FEB17

15AUG14

15FEB17

24MAR05

15FEB17 15SEP12

Other Workers

15FEB17

01MAR06

15FEB17

24MAR05

15FEB17 15SEP12

4th

C

C

15JUL15

C

15JUL15

C

Certain

C

Religious

Workers

C

15JUL15

C

15JUL15

C

5th

C

Non-Regional

Center

(C5 and T5)

22MAY14

C

C

C

C

5th

C

Regional Center

(I5 and R5)

22MAY14

C

C

C

C

*Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

34

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 27 of 34

-5-

April 2017

B. DATES FOR FILING OF EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA APPLICATIONS
The chart below reflects dates for filing visa applications within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process. Applicants for immigrant visas who have a priority date earlier than the application date in the chart may assemble and submit required documents to the Department of State’s National Visa Center, following receipt of notification from the National Visa Center containing detailed instructions. The application date for an oversubscribed category is the priority date of the first applicant who cannot submit documentation to the National Visa Center for an immigrant visa. If a category is designated “current,” all applicants in the relevant category may file, regardless of priority date.
The “C” listing indicates that the category is current, and that applications may be filed regardless of the applicant’s priority date. The listing of a date for any category indicates that only applicants with a priority date which is earlier than the listed date may file their application.
Visit www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo for information on whether USCIS has determined that this chart can be used (in lieu of the chart in paragraph 5.A.) this month for filing applications for adjustment of status with USCIS.

EmploymentBased

All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed

CHINA mainland

born

INDIA

MEXICO PHILIPPINES

1st

C

C

C

C

C

2nd

C

01MAR13 22APR09 C

C

3rd

C

01MAY14 01JUL05 C

01SEP13

Other Workers C

01AUG09 01JUL05 C

01SEP13

4th

C

C

C

C

C

Certain Religious Workers

C

5th Non-Regional Center (C5 and T5)

C

5th Regional Center (I5 and R5)

C

C

C

C

C

15JUN14

C

C

C

15JUN14

C

C

C

6. The Department of State has a recorded message with the cut-off date information for Final Application Action which can be heard at: (202) 485-7699. This recording is updated on or about the tenth of each month with information on final action dates for the following month.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

35

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 28 of 34

-6-

April 2017

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL

Section 203(c) of the INA provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit additional immigration opportunities for persons from countries with low admissions during the previous five years. The NACARA stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annuallyallocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This resulted in reduction of the DV-2017 annual limit to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

For April, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2017 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region

All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately

AFRICA

34,900

Except: Egypt

21,800

Ethiopia 24,500

ASIA

5,500

Except: Iran 5,300 Nepal 4,575

EUROPE

22,100

NORTH AMERICA

10

(BAHAMAS)

OCEANIA

850

SOUTH AMERICA,

900

and the CARIBBEAN

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

36

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 29 of 34

-7-

April 2017

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2017 program ends as of September 30, 2017. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2017 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2017 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2017. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2017 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.

C. THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN MAY

For May, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified

DV-2017 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When

an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants

with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off

number:

All DV Chargeability

Areas Except Those

Region

Listed Separately

AFRICA

Current

Except: Egypt

24,500

Ethiopia 29,100

ASIA

Current

Except: Iran 6,300 Nepal 5,300

EUROPE

Current

NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)

Current

OCEANIA

Current

SOUTH AMERICA,

Current

and the CARIBBEAN

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

37

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 30 of 34

-8-

April 2017

D. RAPID MOVEMENT IN WORLDWIDE FAMILY FOURTH PREFERENCE CATEGORY
Despite the forward movement of the final action dates, the level of demand and resulting number use in several Family preferences has been below expectations. This lower than expected demand has resulted in advancement of the April Worldwide Family Fourth Preference date at a pace that covers the period of several months projected in the March Visa Bulletin’s “Visa Availability in the Coming Months”. This action will allow the overall desired allocation level of number use for and through April to be met. There are signs that demand in the other categories will increase in the coming months, resulting in the higher monthly allocation totals required to allow number use to reach those desired levels. The Fourth Preference date will then be held for a period of time while the anticipated monthly allocation levels in those other preferences increase, without drastically altering overall workload patterns.

E. SCHEDULED EXPIRATION OF TWO EMPLOYMENT VISA CATEGORIES
Employment Fourth Preference Certain Religious Workers (SR):
Pursuant to the continuing resolution signed on December 10, 2016, the non-minister special immigrant program expires on April 28, 2017. No SR visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after midnight April 27, 2017. Visas issued prior to this date will only be issued with a validity date of April 27, 2017, and all individuals seeking admission as a non-minister special immigrant must be admitted (repeat, admitted) into the U.S. no later than midnight April 27, 2017.
The final action date for this category has been listed as “Current” for April for all countries except El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, which are subject to a July 15, 2015 final action date for April. If there is no legislative action extending this category for FY-2017, the final action date would immediately become “Unavailable” for April for all countries effective April 28, 2017.
Employment Fifth Preference Categories (I5 and R5):
The continuing resolution signed on December 10, 2016 extended this immigrant investor pilot program until April 28, 2017. The I5 and R5 visas may be issued until close of business on April 28, 2017, and may be issued for the full validity period. No I5 or R5 visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after April 28, 2017.
The final action dates for the I5 and R5 categories have been listed as “Current” for April for all countries except China-mainland born, which is subject to a May 22, 2014 final action date. If there is no legislative action extending them for FY-2017, the final action dates would immediately become “Unavailable” for April for all countries effective April 29, 2017.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

38

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 31 of 34

-9-

April 2017

F. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA AVAILABILITY
The Department expects to exhaust the Special Immigrant Visas allocated by Congress under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended, not later than June 1, 2017. As a result, the Final Action Date for the SQ category for certain Afghan nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan will become “Unavailable” effective June 2017. No further interviews for Afghan principal applicants in the SQ category will be scheduled after March 1, 2017, and further issuances will not be possible after May 30, 2017.
The SQ category for certain Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq is not affected and remains current, though the application deadline was September 30, 2014.
The FY-2017 annual limit of 50 Special Immigrant Visas in the SI category was reached in December 2016 and the Final Action Date remains “Unavailable.” As included in the January 2017 Visa Bulletin, further issuances in the SI category will not be possible until October 2017, under the FY-2018 annual limit.

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

39

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 32 of 34

-10-

April 2017

G. OBTAINING THE MONTHLY VISA BULLETIN

The Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs publishes the monthly Visa Bulletin on their website at www.travel.state.gov under the Visas section. Alternatively, visitors may access the Visa Bulletin directly by going to:
http://www.travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin.html.

To be placed on the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, please send an E-mail to the following E-mail address:
listserv@calist.state.gov
and in the message body type: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin (example: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin)

To be removed from the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, send an e-mail message to the following E-mail address:
listserv@calist.state.gov
and in the message body type: Signoff Visa-Bulletin
The Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa final action dates which can be heard at: (202) 485-7699. The recording is normally updated on/about the 10th of each month with information on final action dates for the following month.
Readers may submit questions regarding Visa Bulletin related items by E-mail at the following address:
VISABULLETIN@STATE.GOV
(This address cannot be used to subscribe to the Visa Bulletin.)

Department of State Publication 9514 CA/VO: March 9, 2017

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

40

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 33 of 34
EXHIBIT J

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

41

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 74-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 34 of 34

CHAVEZ DECL. ISO PLS.' MOT. FOR TRO AND PRELIM. INJ. Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

42

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT

615 Second Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104

206-957-8611

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 5

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 Juweiya Abdiaziz, et al., 9

No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11 DONALD TRUMP, et al, 12

13

14

Defendants.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF RE TRO BY WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL
Noted for Consideration: March 15 , 2017

15

16

I. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED

17 The Washington State Labor Council (“WSLC”) respectfully requests the Court grant it
18

leave to file the amicus brief attached hereto as Exhibit A. 19

20

II. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

21

The WSLC is a state-wide labor council comprising more than 600 local unions, and it

22 represents more than 450,000 rank-and-file union members working in Washington State.
23 Declaration of Jeff Johnson (“Johnson Declaration”), ¶ 2. It is widely considered to be the
24 “voice of labor” in Washington State. Id. WSLC has a strong interest in advocating for the
25 liberty interests of Washington State workers. Id.
26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF BY WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 1 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 5

1

The WSLC provides many services to its affiliated unions. Johnson Declaration, ¶ 3.

2 The Council has a focus on legislative advocacy, political action, communication through its
3 website “The Stand,” supporting affiliated unions’ organizing drives by rallying community 4
leaders and elected officials, and programs that provide affiliate and direct worker assistance like 5
dislocated worker assistance, increasing student awareness about apprenticeship programs within 6 7 community and technical colleges, Project Help, education and training for union members, and
8 assistance for unions with contract and economic research. Id.

9

On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting

10 the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which like his previous order
11 subject of this litigation bans all refugees from entering the country for 120 days and bans non12
immigrants from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. The order 13
further fans the flames of racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism and ignores the fact that 14
15 America was built by immigrants and refugees and they will continue to play a part in the values
16 upon which we define America. Johnson Declaration ¶ 4.

17

Among WSLC’s affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity Charter with the

18 WSLC, and other labor allies are unions whose members are directly impacted by the most
19 recent Executive Order, because they are non-immigrant temporary workers from one of the six
20 banned countries whose ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited outright or
21 22 whose inability to re-enter the United States after traveling will put their livelihoods in jeopardy.
23 Therefore, although the new Executive Order no longer covers Iraq or affects lawful permanent

24 residents, its effect on members who are temporary or one-entry visa holders is just as harmful as

25 the first Executive Order. The new order will also continue the adverse effect on union members 26 who wish to reunite with family members who are in the process of applying for visitor or

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF BY WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 2 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 5

1 student visas or residency status and will be delayed during the 90-day hiatus. Johnson

2 Declaration, ¶ 6.

3

The members of unions affiliated or allied with WSLC affected by the ban include

4 hospitality workers, retail employees, health-care industry workers, laborers, factory workers,
5 and state, county and municipal employees, among others. These union members are
6

7 exceptionally diverse, comprised of an array of races, nationalities and religions. Many of these

8 union members are immigrants from the six countries affected by the Executive Order or are

9 non-immigrants whose heritage is from one or more of those six countries. A significant

10 proportion of these members identify as Muslim and are American citizens, lawful permanent
11 residents or lawful visitors. Id. 12
The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning immigrants, 13
non-immigrant visitors, and refugees of certain national origins or religions reflects the attitudes 14
15 the government has of its own citizens of those same national origins and religions: that they are
16 less valued, less than equal. Such policies cause harm to our unions’ members that cannot be

17 undone. Johnson Declaration, ¶ 7.

18

III. ARGUMENT

19 WSLC seeks leave to file an amicus brief on the impacts of the most recent Executive
20 Order on the members of unions across a wide range of industries and the irreparable harm
21
22 suffered by those workers in Washington if the Executive Order is not enjoined. The foregoing

23 facts establish the interest of the labor community in the outcome of this proceeding. WSLC will

24 offer additional evidence of irreparable harm to individuals working and residing in Washington,

25 further establishing that the elements for temporary injunctive relief are met. WSLC will offer 26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF BY WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 3 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 5

1 some additional authority supporting, but not duplicating, the arguments made by the plaintiff in

2 support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

3

IV. CONCLUSION

4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exercise its discretion to grant WSLC leave
5 to file the amicus brief attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6

7

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of March, 2017.

8

s/Kathleen Phair Barnard

Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. 17896

9

s/Dmitri Iglitzin

Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673

10

s/Jennifer L. Robbins

11

Jennifer L. Robbins, WSBA No. 40861 Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP

12

18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400

Seattle, WA 98119-3971

13

(206) 257-6003 (phone)

barnard@workerlaw.com

14

iglitzin@workerlaw.com

15

robbins@workerlaw.com

16

Counsel for the Washington State Labor Council

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF BY WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 4 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on this 15th day of March, 2017, I caused the foregoing Motion for

3 Leave to File Amicus Brief by Washington State Labor Council, Declaration of Jeff Johnson,
4 Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright et al., and proposed order to be filed with the Court
5 using the cm/ecf system, which will automatically provide notification of such filing to:
6

7

chad.a.readler@usdoj.gov

8

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

AReichlin-Melnick@immcouncil.org

9

glenda@nwirp.org

kristin@nipnlg.org

10

mkenney@immcouncil.org

11

matt@nwirp.org mcrow@immcouncil.org

12

trina@nipnlg.org

malou@nwirp.org

13

14

s/ Kathleen Phair Barnard

15

Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. 17896

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 11

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 Juweiya Abdiazi,z et al., 9

No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11 DONALD TRUMP,et al., 12

13

Defendants.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL RE MOTION FOR TRO

14

I. INTRODUCTION

15

One week after assuming office, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order

16 fulfilling his campaign promise to enact a “Muslim ban” and to subject immigrant applicants to

17 “extreme vetting.” This Court enjoined enforcement of that Executive Order. Dkt. 52.

18 President Trump has issued a replacement Executive Order that continues to ban new immigrants

19 and non-immigrant visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia,

20 Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days, and to stop entry of all refugees into the country for 120

21 days.

22

The WSLC submits this brief in support of the Emergency Motion for TRO , Dkt. 53, and

23 to ensure that the unconstitutional, unlawful Executive Order does not again go into effect.

24

II. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

25

The WSLC comprises more than 600 local unions and represents more than 450,000

26 rank-and-file union members working in Washington State. It is widely considered to be the

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 1 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 11

1 “voice of labor” in Washington State. WSLC has a strong interest in advocating for the liberty

2 interests of Washington State workers. Johnson Dec. ¶ 2. The WSLC provides many services to

3 its affiliated unions. The Council has a focus on legislative advocacy, political action,

4 communication through its website “The Stand,” supporting affiliated unions’ organizing drives

5 by rallying community leaders and elected officials, and programs that provide affiliate and

6 direct worker assistance like dislocated worker assistance, increasing student awareness about

7 apprenticeship programs within community and technical colleges, Project Help, education and

8 training for union members, and assistance for unions with contract and economic research.

9 Johnson Dec. ¶ 3.

10

Among WSLC’s affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity Charter with the

11 WSLC, and other labor allies are unions whose members are directly impacted by the most

12 recent Executive Order, because they are non-immigrant temporary workers from one of the six
13 banned countries whose ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited outright or
whose inability to re-enter the United States after traveling will put their livelihoods in jeopardy. 14
Therefore, although the new Executive Order no longer covers Iraq or affects lawful permanent 15
residents, its effect on members who are temporary or one-entry visa holders is just as harmful as 16
the first Executive Order. Johnson Dec. ¶ 6. The new order will also continue the adverse effect 17
on union members who wish to reunite with family members who are in the process of applying 18
for visitor or student visas or residency status and will be delayed during the 90-day hiatus. Id. 19
The members of unions affiliated or allied with WSLC affected by the ban include hospitality 20
workers, retail employees, health-care industry workers, laborers, factory workers, and state, 21
county and municipal employees, among others. These union members are exceptionally 22
diverse, comprised of an array of races, nationalities and religions. Many of these union 23
members are immigrants from the six countries affected by the Executive Order or are non24
immigrants whose heritage is from one or more of those six countries. Many of these members
25 identify as Muslim and are American citizens, lawful permanent residents or lawful visitors.
26 Johnson Dec. ¶ 6.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 2 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 11

1

III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY

2 THE NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 3 AND IRREPARABLY HARMS WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

4

A. The Executive Order Unconstitutionally Discriminates Against Workers Of

5

Muslim Faith And Their Families, Denigrates Them Because Of Their Religion,

And Denies Them Equal Standing In Our Society. Absent Injunctive Relief That

6

Irreparable Harm Will Continue.

7

The Executive Order discriminates against persons from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia,

8 Yemen, and Sudan through the flawed logic that because they are more likely than not to be

9 Muslim, they are more likely to be terrorists. Because the order is motivated by animus to a

10 particular religious group, Muslims, and expresses that animus in ways that cause irreparable

11 harm, it is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause and under the Equal Protection

12 aspects of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. This disparate treatment

13 and denigration of Muslim workers and their families is exactly what the Establishment Clause

14 forbids. Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 728 (1994)

15 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause forbids the government to use religion

16 as a line drawing criterion. In this respect, the Establishment Clause mirrors the Equal Protection

17 Clause. Just as the government may not segregate people on account of their race, so too it may

18 not segregate on the basis of religion.”).

19

The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an

20 establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. “The clearest command of the Establishment

21 Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Aziz v.

22 Trump, 2017 WL 580855, at *7 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) (quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 23 228, 244, 102 S. Ct. 1673, 72 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1982)). Thus, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our 24 constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be 25 orthodox in politics, nationalism, [or] religion …” Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52–55, 105 S. 26 Ct. 2479, 2487–89, 86 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1985) (quoting West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 1187, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943)). President Trump’s

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 3 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 11

1 attempt to proscribe Islam dislodges this fixed star in our constitutional order and causes

2 irreparable harm.

3

As Justice O’Connor explained in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69, 105 S. Ct. 2479,

4 2496, 86 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring):

5

[T]he religious liberty protected by the Establishment Clause is infringed when

the government makes adherence to religion relevant to a person's standing in

6

the political community. Direct government action endorsing religion or a

particular religious practice is invalid under this approach because it sends a message

7

to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community,

8

and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

9

Id., at 688, 104 S. Ct., at 1367 (emphasis added)(internal quotation omitted). The WSLC

10 observes that very affect among its union members:

11 The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning

12

immigrants, non-immigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or

religions reflects the attitudes the government has of its own citizens of those

13

same national origins and religions – that they are less valued, less than equal.

14

Such policies cause harm to our unions’ members that cannot be undone.

15 Johnson Dec. ¶ 6.

16

Of course, this unconstitutional message to our Muslim brothers and sisters that they are

17 outsiders without standing in our community causes irreparable harm as a matter of law. Aziz v.

18 Trump, 2017 WL 580855, at *10 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) (quoting Newsom v. Albemarle Cnty.

19 Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct.

20 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976)).

21

B. Absent Injunctive Relief, Workers In Washington And Their Families Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Because Their Government, In Clear Contravention

22

Of The INA, Has Labeled Some Of Them As Being Less Valuable Than Others,

And As Having No Rights.

23

In discussing the Immigration Act of 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk similarly 24

observed that immigration rules have significant domestic, as well as foreign, meaning: 25

[G]iven the fact that we are a country of many races and national origins, that

26

those who built this country and developed it made decisions about opening our

doors to the rest of the world; that anything which makes it appear that we,

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 4 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 11

1

ourselves, are discriminating in principle about particular national origins,

suggests that we think ... less well of our own citizens of those national origins,

2

than of other citizens....1

3 Attorney General Katzenbach accurately assessed the damage done by discriminatory

4 immigration rules the 1965 Act was meant to abolish:

5

I do not know how any American could fail to be offended by a system which

6

presumes that some people are inferior to others solely because of their

birthplace.... The harm it does to the United States and to its citizens is

7

incalculable.

8 Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Naturalization of the Senate

9 Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong. 119 (1965) 9.

10

Through the INA, the Congress abolished discrimination long codified in statutory

11 national origin quotas which disfavored non-European immigrants:

12

Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27),

1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or

13

priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because

14

of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

15 8 U.S.C. § 1152 (enacted by Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965)).

16

The quotas were introduced into law in 1921 and extended by the Immigration Act of

17 1924, which required a study of the ethnic sources of America’s white population from the

18 origins of settlement; and quotas were derived from the percentages of the U.S. population that 19 were derived from any particular nation. This had the effect of limiting immigration from Asia, 20 and non-Protestant eastern and southern Europe. Pub.L. 67-5; 42 Stat. 5 (1921); Pub.L. 67-5; 42 21 Stat. 5 (1924). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, retained 22 modified quotas that again reflected the existing demographic mix of U.S. inhabitants and had no 23 purpose other than to maintain the existing ethnic and religious composition of the national

24

1 Immigration: Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the Comm. on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H.R.

25

7700 and 55 Identical Bills, 88th Cong. 901-02 (1964), reprinted in 10A Oscar Trelles & James Bailey, Immigration

and Nationality Acts: Legislative Histories and Related Documents, doc. 69A (1979) 390. See also id. at 410

26

(remarks of Attorney General Robert Kennedy) (noting that the bill “would remove from our law a discriminatory system of selecting immigrants that is a standing affront to millions of our citizens”).

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 5 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 7 of 11

1 population. See Mary Jane Lapointe, Discrimination in Asylum Law: The Implications of Jean v.

2 Nelson, 62 Ind. L.J. 127, 149 (1986). That discriminatory purpose became the focal point of

3 intense debate which fueled the impetus for the 1965 Act.

4

President Harry Truman opposed the discriminatory quota system, and when his veto of

5 the 1952 act was overridden, he denounced the system as being contrary to American values
6 because it “discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against many of the peoples of the
7 world.” The President's Veto Message, June 25, 1952, reprinted in The President’s Comm’n on
8 Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall Welcome 277. President Truman’s Commission on Immigration
9 and National Origin had found that “the major disruptive influence in our immigration law is the
10 racism and national discrimination caused by the national origins system,” and that the present
11 system should be replaced with a “unified quota system, which would allocate visas without
12 regard to national origin, race, creed, or color.” The President’s Comm’n on Imm. and Nat., 13 Whom We Shall Welcome 263 (submitted Jan. 1, 1953).
In 1958, then Senator John Kennedy published a broadside against the national origin 14
quota system in which he criticized the system for having “strong overtures of an indefensible 15
racial preference.” John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants 77 (1964). As President, he 16
introduced legislation to end the quota system, and President Lyndon Johnson strongly 17
advocated for the bill, after President Kennedy’s death. The INA was enacted in 1965 as one of 18
three complimentary bills passed early in Johnson's presidency, the others being the Civil Rights 19
Act of 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964), and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub.L. 20
No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (1965).2 See Roger Daniels, Coming To America: A History of 21

22

23

2 Senator Hiram Fong described the purpose of the Act as “seeking an immigration policy reflecting America’s ideal

of the equality of all men without regard to race, color, creed or national origin,” which he noted reflected the values

24 of the Civil Rights Act:

25

Last year we enacted the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was designed to wipe out the last

vestiges of racial discrimination against our own citizens . . . . As we move to erase racial discrimination

26

against our own citizens, we should also move to erase racial barriers against citizens of other lands in our immigration laws.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 6 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 8 of 11

1 Immigration And Ethnicity In American Life 338 (1990) (observing that the Civil Rights Act,

2 Voting Rights Act and Immigration Act “represent a kind of high-water mark in a national

3 consensus of egalitarianism”); Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Immigration Policy and the American

4 Labor Force 62 (1984) (“Just as overt racism could no longer be tolerated in the way citizens

5 treated their fellow citizens, neither could it be sanctioned in the laws that governed the way in

6 which noncitizens were considered for immigrant status.”).

7

In supporting passage of the INA, Senator Edward M. Kennedy argued that the national

8 origins quota system was “contrary to our basic principles as a nation.” 111 Cong.Rec. 24, 225

9 (1965). Senator Joseph Clark insisted that “the national origins quotas and the Asian-Pacific

10 triangle provisions are irrational, arrogantly intolerant, and immoral” and that it was unjust that

11 “[a] brilliant Korean or Indian scientist is turned away, while the northern European is accepted
12 almost without question.” Id. at 24, 501. Representative Paul Krebs stated that immigration
13 rules based on national origin were “repugnant to our national traditions” and that “we must
14 learn to judge each individual by his own worth and by the value he can bring to our Nation.” Id.
at 21, 778. Representative Dominick Daniels rejected the national origin quotas on the basis that 15
“racism simply has no place in America in this day and age.” Id. at 21, 787. Other senators and 16
officials condemned the national origins quota system as “un-American” and “totally alien to the 17
spirit of the Constitution,” and praised the new bill for its recognition of individual rights. 18
Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the Senate Comm. on the 19
Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1965) (statement of Attorney General Katzenbach), 47 20
(statement of Secretary of State Dean Rusk), 127 (statement of Senator Hugh Scott), 165 21
(statement of Senator Paul Douglas) and 217 (statement of Senator Robert Kennedy); see also 22
Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 23

24

25

26

Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 44-45 (1965).

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 7 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 9 of 11

1 723 (1964), where the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, James B. Carey, quotes the AFL-

2 CIO Declaration in support of the bill).

3

The INA repealed a system that, in the words of President Johnson, “violated the basic

4 principle of American democracy—the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis

5 of his merit . . . .” T. Aleinikoff & D. Martin, Immigration Process and Policy 55 (1985). In that

6 regard, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the INA’s “focus on the individual is

7 unambiguous. It precludes treatment of individuals as simply components of a racial, religious,

8 sexual, or national class.” City of Los Angeles, Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S.

9 702, 708, 98 S. Ct. 1370, 55 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1978). In enacting the INA, Congress intended to

10 end discrimination based on national origin and religion and non-discrimination “requires …

11 focus on fairness to individuals rather than fairness to classes. Practices that classify employees

12 in terms of religion, race, or sex tend to preserve traditional assumptions about groups rather than

13 thoughtful scrutiny of individual.” Manhart, 435 U.S. at 709-10. The order works precisely as

did the repealed quota system, by denying liberty to whole classes of people based on their 14

national origin. The Executive Order thus directly contravenes the INA and the nation’s values, 15

which mandate that each individual is evaluated on his or her own merit. 16

C. The Executive Order Unlawfully Discriminates Against Classes of People

17

Based Only On Their Membership In Groups The Federal Government

18

Has Stigmatized Without Any Justification, Let Alone The Compelling Justification That Is Required For The Executive Order To Be Upheld.

19 The Executive Order at issue here is blanket discrimination against classes of individuals
20 based on their national origin and religion, classifications that are not consistent with American
21 law or even rational, and are at the same time over- and under-inclusive. It denies people from
22 the six excluded nations evaluation on individual merit and instead imposes what our

23 Constitution and laws protect against: invidious discrimination based on particular

24 characteristics. It denies U. S. resident family members of people from those six nations the

25 normal act of family visits and reunification without any individualized evaluation of risk .

26

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 8 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 10 of 11

1

The invidious blanket assumption that United States residents from the six majority-

2 Muslim countries or their family members and compatriots who may wish to join them here pose

3 some sort of terror threat cannot possibly survive scrutiny. President Trump defends the 4 Executive Order with rhetoric of national security without evidence to back up the rhetoric.3

5 The WSLC joins in the following statement of former national security, foreign policy, and

6 intelligence officials in the United States Government condemning the Executive Order as

7 antithetical to American law and values:

8

As government officials, we sought diligently to protect our country, even while

maintaining an immigration system free from intentional discrimination, that

9

applies no religious tests, and that measures individuals by their merits, not

stereotypes of their countries or groups. Blanket bans of certain countries or

10

classes of people are beneath the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we

11

each took oaths to protect. Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a “Muslim Ban” as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

12

States” does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary,

effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.

13

Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John 14

E. Mclaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, Susan 15
E. Rice. 16
CONCLUSION 17
The individual tangible and dignitary harm that is being suffered by residents whose

18 national origin is from the countries subject to the Executive Order and whose religion is

19 targeted is irreparable, in violation of the INA and the Constitution. The Executive Order is not

20 even rationally related to its stated goal of protecting national security. The harms that would be

21

22

23
3 Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a statement expressing this defective logic in defense of the new Executive

24

Order: “We also know that people seeking to support or commit terrorist attacks here will try to enter through our

refugee program. In fact, today more than 300 people who came here as refugees are under FBI investigation for

25

potential terrorism-related activities.” Found at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-

delivers-remarks-revised-executive-order-protecting-nation. The statement does not provide any information about

26

the national origin or religion of these 300 individuals or whether there is any conclusive evidence that any of them are engaged in terrorist activities.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 9 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-1 Filed 03/15/17 Page 11 of 11

1 suffered if the previous injunction is not applied to this new iteration of the same enjoined

2 actions are severe, and the need for continuing injunctive relief is urgent.

3

DATED this 15th day of March, 2017.

4

s/Kathleen Phair Barnard

5

Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. 17896

6

s/Dmitri Iglitzin

Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673

7

s/Jennifer L. Robbins

Jennifer L. Robbins, WSBA No. 40861

8

Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP

9

18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98119-3971

10

(206) 257-6003 (phone)

barnard@workerlaw.com

11

iglitzin@workerlaw.com

robbins@workerlaw.com 12

13

Counsel for Washington State Labor Council

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 10 Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 17
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 7 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 8 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 9 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 10 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 11 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 12 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 13 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 14 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 15 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 16 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 75-2 Filed 03/15/17 Page 17 of 17

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et a!.,

CASE NO. C17-0135JLR

11

Plaintiffs,

v.

12

DONALD TRUMP, eta!., 13

Defendants. 14

ORDER STAYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

Before the court is Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO")

17 and preliminary injunctive relief. 1 (TRO Mot. (Dkt. #53).) Plaintiffs seek an injunction

18

1 Plaintiff Juweiya Abddiaziz Ali is a United States citizen, who resides in Seattle. (Am.

19 Compl. (Dkt. #52)~ 11.) Plaintiff A.F.A. is her seven-year-old son, and he is citizen and

resident of Somalia. (Id. ~ 12.) PlaintiffReema Khaled Dahmen is a lawful pennanent resident

20 of the U.S., residing in Seattle, and a Syrian citizen. (Id. ~ 13.) Plaintiff G.E. is Ms. Dahmen's
16-year-old son, and he is citizen and resident of Syria. (!d. ~ 14.) Plaintiff Jaffer Akhlaq

21

Hussain is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, residing in Parlin, New Jersey, and a citizen of Pakistan. (Id. '1[15.) PlaintiffSeyedehfatemeh Hamedani is his wife. (Id. ~ 16.) She

22

is a citizen and resident of Iran. (!d.) Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar is a naturalized citizen of the United States, residing in Seattle. (!d.~ 17.) PlaintiffFadma Olad Issa is the 19-year-old

ORDER-!

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 12

1 of certain provisions Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled "Protecting the Nation for

2 Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" ("E02"). (See id.) Specifically, Plaintiffs

3 seek to enjoin those provisions of E02 that suspends entry into the United States for a

4 minimum of 90 days for nationals oflran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, andYemen.
5 (See id.) Defendants oppose the motion. 2 (Resp. (Dkt. # 71).) On March 15,2017, the 6 court heard the argument of counse1.3 (3/15/17 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 78).)

7

Almost immediately following oral argument concerning Plaintiffs' motion, the

8 court learned that the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i entered a

9 temporary restraining order in Hawai 'i v. Trump, No. 17-00050 DKW-KSC (D. Haw.),

10 restraining similar federal defendants from enforcing Sections 2 and 6 ofE02. See id.,

11 Dkt. # 219. In addition, on March 16, 2017, the United States District Court for the

12 District of Maryland entered a preliminary injunction in international Rejitgee Assistance

13

14

15

daughter of Mr. Omar. (!d. "lfl8.) She was born in Kenya with her two siblings. (/d.) Under Kenya's jus sanguinis law, she is a citizen of Somalia. (!d.) PlaintiffF.O.I. is the 17-year-old

daughter of Mr. Omar. (!d. "lfl9.) She was born in Kenya with her two siblings, but under 16 Kenya's jus sanguinis law, she is a citizen of Somalia. (!d.) PlaintiffS.O.I. is the 12-year-old

son of Mr. Omar. (!d. "lf20.) Under Kenya's jus sanguinis law, he is a citizen of Somalia. (!d.) 17

2 Defendants are President Donald J. Trump, Attorney General of the United States

18 Jefferson B. Sessions, the United States Department of State ("DOS"), Secretary of State Rex W.

Tillerson, the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Secretary ofDHS John

19 F. Kelly, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Acting Director of

USCIS Lori Scialabba, United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), Acting

20 Commissioner ofCBP Kevin K. McAleenan, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Acting Director of National Intelligence Michael Dempsey. (Am. Compl. "lf"lf21-32.)

21

3 In addition, the court asked the parties to submit additional memoranda concerning the

availability of injunctive relieffor anon-certified class. (See 3/13/17 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 65).) 22 Both sides filed the requested memoranda. (See Plf. Brief (Dlct. # 72); Def. Brief (Dkt. # 70).)

ORDER-2

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 12

1 Project v. Trump, No. 8:170cv-00361-TDC (D. Md.), enjoining similar federal

2 defendants from enforcing Section 2(c) ofE02. See id., Dkt. ## 149-50.

3

The court has considered Plaintiffs' motion, Defendants' response, the oral

4 argument of counsel, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. In

5 addition, the court has considered the recent developments in the District Courts of

6 Hawai'i and Maryland. Being fully advised, the court stays Plaintiffs' motion as

7 discussed below.

8

II. BACKGROUND

9

This lawsuit arises out of President Donald J. Trump's recent execution of two

10 Executive Orders regarding immigration. Indeed, numerous suits involving the

11 President's Executive Orders have been filed around the country, and their progression

12 has become intertwined.

13

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13,769,

14 "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," 82 Fed. Reg.

15 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017) ("EOl"). (See Am. Compl. ~ 3.) EO! directed a series of changes to

16 the manner in which non-citizens may seek and obtain entry to the United States. (See

17 generally id.) Section 3(c) of EO 1 proclaimed that the continued entry of immigrants and

18 nonimrnigrants from countries referred to in Section 217(a)(l2) of the Immigration and

19 Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) (i.e., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,

20 Syria, and Yemen) "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." (EO!

21 § 3(c).) EOl "suspend[ed] entry into the United States, as immigrants and

22 nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date ofth[e] order." (!d.)

ORDER- 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 12

1

On January 27, 2017, the DOS Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular

2 Affairs, issued a cable stating that, upon the request of the DHS and pursuant to EO!, he

3 was revoking all valid innnigrant and noninnnigrant visas of nationals from the seven

4 targeted countries, with limited exceptions. (!d.~ 54.) "The impact of the Executive

5 Order was immediate and widespread." Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th

6 Cir. 2017). "It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds

7 of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United

8 States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained." !d.

9

On February 3, 2017, this court issued a TRO in Washington v. Trump, No.

10 C17-0141JLR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. #52, enjoining Sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) ·

11 of EO 1. On February 4, 2017, the defendants appealed the TRO to the Ninth Circuit, and

12 moved to stay this court's order. Id., Dkt. #53. The Ninth Circuit construed this court's

13 TRO as a preliminary injunction and declined to stay the preliminary injunction pending

14 the defendants' appeal of the order in the Ninth Circuit. (See Am. Compl. ~57 (citing

15 Washington, 847 F.3d 1151).) On February 9, 2017, the federal district court in Hawai'i

16 stayed proceedings in Hawai 'i v. Trump while this court's preliminary injunction of EO1

17 remained in place and pending resolution of the appeal filed by the Washington v. Trump

18 defendants in the Ninth Circuit. See Hawai 'i v. Trump, Dkt. # 32.

19

On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued E02, which expressly revokes EO 1.

20 See E02 § 13. In addition, Defendants withdrew their appeal ofthis court's injtmction

21 with respect to EO!. See Washington v. Trump, Dkt. # 111 (Ninth Circuit order granting

22 the de:fendants' unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal). Whereas EO!

ORDER-4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 12

1 suspended the entry into the United States of nationals from seven predominantly Muslim

2 countries, E02 omits Iraq, but continues to suspend the entry of nationals from Iran,

3 Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. (Am. Compl. ~ 62.)

4

Plaintiffs originally filed this putative class action lawsuit on January 30, 2017,

5 just days after President Trump executed EO!. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) On February 6,

6 201 7, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants

7 from enforcing Section 3 of EO! on a class-wide basis. (See PI Mot. (Dkt. # 9).) This 8 motion is now moot because E02 expressly revoked EO 1 effective March 16, 2017.4 See

9 E02 § 13. On March 10, 2017, four days after President Trump executed E02, Plaintiffs

10 filed an amended complaint asserting new allegations concerning the harms they have

11 experienced or will experience as a result ofE02. (Am. Compl.) On the same day,

12 Plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunctive relief concerning certain

13 provisions ofE02. (See TRO Mot.)

14

Meanwhile, following President Trump's issuance ofE02 and the Washington v.

15 Trump defendants' withdrawal of their appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the federal district

16 court in Hawai'i lifted its stay, and the plaintiffs in that action filed an amended

17 complaint adding allegations concerning E02 and a TRO motion seeking to enjoin

18 certain aspects ofE02. Hawai;i v. Trump, Dkt. ## 59-1, 60-1, 64, 65. The federal

19 district court in Hawai'i enjoined the enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 ofE02 on March

20 15, 2017-shortly after this court heard oral argument and took Plaintiffs' motion for a

21 4 Although two courts have enjoined parts ofE02, Section 13 ofE02, which revokes
22 EO!, is not enjoined.

ORDER- 5

..

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of 12

1 TRO and preliminary injunctive under advisement in this litigation. See id. Dkt., ## 219-

2 20. The federal district court in Maryland followed the federal district court in Hawai'i

3 on March 16,2017, with its own order enjoining Section 2(c) ofE02. See Int'l Refugee

4 Assistance Project v. Trump, Dkt. ## 149-50.

5

On March 15, 2017, shortly after the federal district court in Hawai'i entered its

6 order, President Trump vowed in public remarks to appeal the Hawai'i federal district

7 court order "as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court."

8 Donald J. Trump, Remarks by the President at Make America Great Again Rally (Mar.

9 15, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/15/remarks-president-

10 make-america-great-again-rally (last visited Mar. 17, 2017). In addition, on March 16,

11 2017, the President's Press Secretary, Sean .Spicer, stated that the President intends to

12 appeal both the court's ruling in Hawai 'i v. Trump, as well as the court's ruling in

13 International Refitgee Assistance Project v. Trump, soon. Press Briefing by Press

14 Secretary Sean Spicer, 3/16/17, # 25 (Mar. 16, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-

15 press-office/2017/03/16/press-Qriej}_Jlg:p_ress-secretary-sean-spicer-3162017-25 (lasted

16 visited Mar. 17, 2017).

17

This court now finds itself in virtually the same position as the federal district

18 court in Hawai'i when that court stayed proceedings while this court's preliminary

19 injunction concerning EOl was on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the court

20 sua sponte considers whether to stay Plaintiffs' pending TRO motion so long as the

21 nationwide TRO entered in Hawai 'i v. Trump or a preliminary injunction of equal scope

22 remains in effect.

ORDER-6

..

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of 12

1

III. ANALYSIS

2 A. The Court's Authority to Issue a Stay

3

"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

4 to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,

5 for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "The

6 exertion of this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion" CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300

7 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); see Clinton v.Jones, 520 U.S. 681,706 (1997) ("The

8 District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

9 control its own docket."); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005)

10 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Courts have the power to consider stays sua sponte.

11 See, e.g., Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Kama, No. 14-00137 ACK-KSC, 2016 WL

12 922780, at *8-9 (D. Haw. Mar. 9, 2016) (staying proceedings, sua sponte, pending

13 resolution of related cases before the Ninth Circuit because resolution of those cases

14 "w[ould] likely involve an analysis of' obscure issues, thereby "provid[ing] further

15 guidance" to the court with respect to the case in question); see also S.E. C. v. Chestman,

16 861 F.2d 49, 50 (2d Cir. 1988) (noting that district court can enter an order staying

17 discovery sua sponte).

18

The issues involved in the pending proceedings need not be "controlling of the

19 action before the court" for the court to issue a stay. Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. Indeed,

20 where a stay is considered pending the resolution of another action, the court need not

21 find that two cases possess identical issues; a finding that the issues are substantially

22 similar is sufficient to support a stay. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254.

ORDER-7

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 8 of 12
•'

1 B. The Factors the Court Considers

2

In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, "the competing interests [that]

3 will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed." Lockyer, 398

4 F.3d at 1110 (citing CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268). Those interests include: (1) "the possible

5 damage which may result from the granting of a stay," (2) "the hardship or inequity

6 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward," and (3) "the orderly course of

7 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and

8 questions oflaw which could be expected to result from a stay." Id. Here, the court finds

9 that these factors weigh in favor of staying the resolution of Plaintiffs' TRO motion so

10 long as the nationwide TRO entered inHawai 'i v. Trump or a preliminary injunction of

11 equal scope remains in effect.

12

1. Possible Damage Resulting from a Stay

13

Ordinarily, Plaintiffs would oppose a stay under these circumstances, and so the

14 considers any damage that may result to Plaintiffs if the court imposes a stay. Lockyer,

15 398 F.3d at 1110. In light of the state of the proceedings in the federal district court in

16 Hawai'i, the court fmds that any prejudice caused by a delay in the court's resolution of

17 Plaintiffs' motion will be minimal-if there is any at all. The Federal District Court of

18 Hawai'i's nationwide injunction already provides Plaintiffs the relief they seek in their

19 TRO motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will not suffer the type of damage described in

20 Landis. 299 U.S. at 255. Further, if circumstances change, such as lifting the TRO or

21 narrowing the scope of the TRO or a subsequent preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs can

22 seek to lift the stay. Based on the speed with which the Ninth Circuit proceeded in

ORDER- 8

..

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 9 of 12

1 Washington v. Trump, the court does not anticipate that a stay will last long. If, however,

2 this assumption proves to be wrong, and the delay causes harm, then again Plaintiffs can

3 seek to lift the stay.

4

2. Possible Hardship or Inequity Resulting from Going Forward

5

Ordinarily, Defendants would benefit from a stay under these circumstances, and

6 so the court considers any hardship or inequity that might result to them from going

7 forward. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110. Here, there is little possibility of hardship or

8 inequity for Defendants because the parties have already briefed Plaintiffs' TRO motion

9 (see TRO Mot.; Resp.), and the court has heard oral argument (see 3/15/17 Min. Entry).

10 "[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a clear case of

11 hardship or inequity" for purposes of a stay. Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112 (internal

12 quotations omitted). Thus, the court considers this factor to be primarily neutral.

13 However, "hardship or inequity may result to both parties if the [c]ourt does not pause to

14 consider issues ... [that will be on appeal in the Ninth Circuit] because ofthe potential

15 for inconsistent rulings and resulting confusion to law enforcement agencies and the

16 public." Hawai 'i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KJM, 2017 WL 536826, at *3 (D.

17 Haw. Feb. 9, 2017). Thus, in these unique circumstances, this factor is either neutral or

18 tips somewhat in favor of the stay.

19

3. The Orderly Course of Justice

20

Last, the court considers "the orderly course ofjustice measured in terms of the

21 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

22 expected from a stay." CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55).

ORDER- 9

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 10 of 12

1 Given the significant overlap of issues between this case andHawai'i v. Trump, granting

2 a stay of Plaintiffs' TRO motion while the nationwide injunction remains in place in the

3 court in Hawai'i and pending the outcome of appellate proceedings in that case would

4 facilitate the orderly course ofjustice. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit's rulings on E02 in

5 Hawai 'i v. Trump will likely have significant relevance to-and potentially control-the

6 court's subsequent rulings here.

7

The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Washington v. Trump does not obviate the benefit

8 of waiting for a further rulings in Hawai 'i v. Trump. The issues involved in Hawai 'i v.

9 Trump are related to the issues in Washington v. Trump, but they are not identical. As

10 this court has previously found, there are significant differences between the provisions,

11 scope, and articulated purposes ofEOl and E02. See Washington v. Trump, Dkt. # 163

12 at 5-6. The Ninth Circuit's ruling on the defendants' motion to stay this court's

13 preliminary injunction in Washington v. Trump with respect to EOl does not preordain

14 how the Ninth Circuit will rule inHawai 'i v. Trump with respect to E02. Further,

15 because the defendants' dismissed their appeal in Washington v. Trump, all of the Ninth

16 Circuit's rulings in that case addressed the defendants' motion to stay this court's

17 preliminary injunction. See Washington, 847 F.3d at 1156. The Ninth Circuit never

18 ruled on the direct appeal of this court's preliminary injunction.

19

Because many of the legal arguments Plaintiffs presented in their TRO motion are

20 likely to be before the Ninth Circuit, the court finds it would waste judicial resources to

21 decide these issues in this forum when guidance from the Ninth Circuit will be available

22 shortly. The more efficient course is to wait for a decision from the Ninth Circuit in

ORDER-10

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 11 of 12

1 Hawai'i v. Trump, which may resolve the primary issues. See, e.g., Landis, 299 U.S. at

2 256 (explaining that even if a decision of the pending case "may not settle every question

3 of fact and law" in suits in other states, "in all likelihood it will settle many and simplify

4 them all."). The court can then resolve any remaining issues in thls case with the benefit

5 of the Ninth Circuit's analysis.

6

Finally, as the Hawai'i federal district court noted when it stayed its proceedings,

7 granting a stay will "also reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings that the appellate courts

8 might then need to disentangle." Hawai 'i, 2017 WL 536826, at *5. "[W]here significant

9 litigation is likely to take place during the pendency of an appeal," granting a stay is a

10 "means of conserving judicial resources." !d. Considerable judicial resources may be

11 wasted "if the appellate court's controlling decision changes the applicable law or the

12 relevant landscape of facts that need to be developed." Jd.

13

4. Summary of the Factors

14

The court's evaluation of the relevant factors weighs in favor of imposing a

15 limited stay on these proceedings. The court, in its discretion, stays its consideration of

16 Plaintiffs' TRO motion. No other aspects ofthls litigation are stayed. The stay on

17 Plaintiffs' TRO motion will remain in place so long as the nationwide TRO or a

18 preliminary injunction of identical scope remains in place in Hawai 'i v. Trump. This stay

19 will permit the court to conserve its resources and to benefit from any Ninth Circuit

20 rulings in Hawai 'i v. Trump regarding E02. Further, "[t]he risk of inconsistent rulings

21 and duplicative litigation" warrants the imposition of the limited stay here, "particularly

22

ORDER -11

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 79 Filed 03/17/17 Page 12 of 12

1 where ... there is an absence of significant harm [or hardship] from granting a stay."

2 Hawai'i, 2017 WL 536826, at *5.

3

IV. CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court STAYS its determination ofPlaintiffs'

5 TRO motion (Dkt. #53). The court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this motion from its

6 calendar. Should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted, either

7 party may move to lift the stay. If the stay is lifted, the court will rule on Plaintiffs'

8 motion, if appropriate, as soon as practicable. In addition, as indicated in this order, see

9 supra at 5, Plaintiffs' original motion for a preliminary injunction related to EO 1 is now

10 moot (Dkt. # 9). Accordingly, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this motion from

11 the court's calendar.

.Ito

12

Dated this l'l. day of March, 2017.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER-12

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

9

10 JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-0135JLR

11

Plaintiffs,

v.

12

DONALD TRUMP, et al., 13

Defendants. 14

ORDER DENYING MIKKI THE MIME’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

15

Before the court is Mikki the Mime’s Motion to Intervene. (Mot. (Dkt. # 60).)

16 Ms. Mime is proceeding pro se, and the court liberally construes her filing as a motion to

17 intervene in these proceedings and a supporting memorandum.

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), in order to intervene as of right in

19 this action, Ms. Mime must establish that she has (1) “an unconditional right to intervene

20 by a federal statute,” or (2) “an interest relating to the . . . transaction that is the subject of

21 the action . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). For permissive intervention, Ms. Mime must

22 show that she has (1) “a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute,” or (2) “a

ORDER - 1

1 claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”

2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). The burden is on the proposed intervenor to demonstrate that

3 the conditions for intervention are satisfied. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370

4 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004).

5

Ms. Mime fails to demonstrate that the conditions for either intervention as of

6 right or for permissive intervention are met. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)-(b)(1).

7 Accordingly, the court DENIES her motion to intervene (Dkt. # 60). Further, the court

8 DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future filings by Ms. Mime on the court’s

9 docket for this case, unless the filing is a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal

10 of this order.

11

Dated this 29th day of March, 2017.

12

13

A

14

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER - 2

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 13 The Honorable James L. Robart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP

Noted For Consideration: April 14, 2017

Defendants hereby move the Court to stay district court proceedings in this case pending resolution of Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary injunction in Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv50 (D. Haw.). The parties’ Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan demonstrates that Plaintiffs intend to seek sweeping and invasive discovery, to which Defendants will object on numerous grounds. As explained below, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii is likely to provide substantial guidance to this Court and the parties in resolving (or eliminating) these discovery

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 1 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 13

disputes and Defendants’ forthcoming response deadlines. Proceeding in the absence of such

guidance would be inefficient, waste the resources of the Court and the parties, and potentially

result in inconsistent rulings that would need to be corrected in light of the Ninth Circuit’s

decision. Moreover, the wide-ranging discovery Plaintiffs seek will undoubtedly impose a heavy

burden on Defendants and the Court. Plaintiffs, in contrast, will not be harmed by a brief stay

while the Ninth Circuit considers an expedited appeal in Hawaii, as the relevant provisions of

Executive Order No. 13,780 (“Order”) are currently enjoined nationwide. “The high respect that

is owed to the office of the Chief Executive,” which the Supreme Court has instructed “is a matter

that should inform . . . the timing and scope of discovery,” Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004), warrants a stay here.

BACKGROUND

I.

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint challenging Sections 1(f), 2 and 3 of the Order

and Section 3(c) of the now-revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 (“Revoked Order”). See ECF

No. 52. Plaintiffs claim both orders violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment, Equal

Protection, and Due Process Clauses, as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)

and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See id. ¶¶ 172-94. Plaintiffs filed a second class

certification motion on the same day. See ECF No. 58.

Also on that day, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and

preliminary injunctive relief against enforcement of the Order. See ECF No. 53. On March 15,

2017, in another case, the District Court for the District of Hawaii entered a TRO that enjoined

enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of the Order nationwide. See Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50,

2017 WL 1011673, at *1 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017). The following day, the District Court for the

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 2 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 3 of 13
District of Maryland entered a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Order. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (“IRAP”), No. 17-cv-361, 2017 WL 1018235, at *18 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017).1 In light of these decisions and the Court’s understanding that Defendants would likely appeal them, the Court sua sponte stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ TRO motion. “Given the significant overlap of issues between this case and Hawaii,” the Court reasoned that “the Ninth Circuit’s rulings on [the Order] in [Hawaii] will [] likely have significant relevance to—and potentially control—the court’s subsequent ruling here.” Ali v. Trump, No. 17-cv-135, 2017 WL 1057645, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017). The Court further noted that this stay would permit the Court to “conserve its resources and . . . benefit from any Ninth Circuit rulings in Hawai’i.” Id.
II. JOINT STATUS REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN The parties recently filed their Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan, in which Plaintiffs
indicated that they intend to seek wide-ranging and intrusive discovery. See ECF No. 82. Plaintiffs anticipate conducting discovery on a broad array of topics, including “at least”:
[T]he circumstances leading to Defendants’ issuance of Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” 82 F.R. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017) (EO1) and EO2; the policy and purpose underlying EO1 and EO2; support for statistics and related data contained or referenced in EO1 and EO2; interagency memorandum and directives for implementing the EOs; interagency memorandum and directives responding to injunctive relief directed at the EOs; and documents identifying the number of cases, processing times, and any additional protocol implemented for processing Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ visa applications. Id. ¶¶ 4(B), 5(E).

1 On March 24, 2017, in a third case, the district court denied a preliminary injunction motion. See Sarsour v. Trump, No. 17-cv-120, 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017). The court held the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their INA, APA, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection Clause claims. See id.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 3 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 4 of 13

Plaintiffs indicated the potential for 30(b)(6) depositions, id., and expect Defendants to produce “substantial amounts of [electronically stored information].” Id. ¶ 4(C). They anticipate discovery will take approximately eight months to complete. Specifically, they expect the case will be ready for trial by March 2018, with fact discovery to be completed 150 days before trial and expert discovery to be completed 120 days beforehand. See id. ¶¶ 4(F), 11.
As Defendants asserted in the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan and for reasons discussed below (among others), Defendants do not believe any discovery is appropriate in this case—much less the sweeping and intrusive discovery Plaintiffs desire. Defendants, therefore, anticipate many discovery disputes if this case moves forward now.2 III. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN HAWAII
The district court in Hawaii converted its TRO into a preliminary injunction on March 29, 2017. See Hawaii, No. 17-cv-50, ECF No. 270. The preliminary injunction prevents Defendants from enforcing Sections 2 and 6 of the Order nationwide. See id. Defendants appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit on March 30, 2017, see id., ECF No. 271, and intend to seek expedited review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). That power applies “especially in cases of extraordinary public moment,” when “a plaintiff may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted.” Id. at 707.

2 Plaintiffs could begin serving discovery at any time, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), and Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and second motion for class certification, which Defendants also seek to stay via this motion, are currently due on April 3.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 4 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 5 of 13

The Ninth Circuit has described various factors that should be considered when

evaluating a motion to stay:

Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). As to the last factor, courts frequently

grant stays when resolution of another action may “bear upon the case,” because a stay is most

“efficient for [the court’s] own docket and the fairest course for the parties[.]” Leyva v. Certified

Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). Where such a stay is considered,

the court need not find that the two cases possess identical issues or that resolution of one will

control the other; a finding that the cases present substantially similar issues is sufficient. See

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864.

ARGUMENT

Consideration of these factors warrants a stay of district court proceedings in this case

pending resolution of the Hawaii appeal.

I.

A STAY WOULD PROMOTE JUDICIAL ECONOMY BECAUSE THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S

DECISION IN HAWAII IS LIKELY TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON FORTHCOMING ISSUES IN

THIS CASE.

District courts routinely stay proceedings where resolution of an appeal in another matter

may provide guidance to the district court in deciding issues before it. See Landis, 299 U.S. at

254; see, e.g., Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Kama, No. 14-cv-137, 2016 WL 922780, at *8-

*9 (D. Haw. Mar. 9, 2016) (granting stay where Ninth Circuit’s resolution of related cases

“w[ould] likely involve an analysis of” issues that would “provid[e] further guidance” to the

district court); Unitek Solvent Servs., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. 12-cv-704, 2014 WL

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 5 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 6 of 13

12576648, at *4 (D. Haw. Jan. 14, 2014) (same). This approach not only “preserve[s] resources for both the parties and the Court,” id., but also “reduce[s] the risk of inconsistent rulings that the appellate court[] might then need to disentangle,” Ali, 2017 WL 1057645, at *5. “Considerable . . . resources may be wasted if the appellate court’s controlling decision changes the applicable law or the relevant landscape of facts that need to be developed” in the case before the district court. Id. Indeed, in the prior round of litigation related to the Revoked Order—when this Court had entered a nationwide injunction in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-41 (W.D. Wash.), Defendants appealed, and then sought a stay of proceedings in the Hawaii case—the Hawaii court granted that stay, recognizing that staying proceedings “pending the outcome of appellate proceedings would facilitate the orderly course of justice.” Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50, 2017 WL 536826, at *4 (D. Haw. Feb. 9, 2017).
This Court also recently recognized the value of a stay pending appeal when it sua sponte stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ TRO motion. Ali, 2017 WL 1057645, at *5. “Because many of the legal arguments Plaintiffs raise[d] in their TRO motion [were] likely to be before the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii,” the Court determined that “it would waste judicial resources to decide these issues . . . when guidance from the Ninth Circuit is likely to be available soon.” Id. The Court thus concluded that “[t]he more efficient course” was to “wait for a decision from the Ninth Circuit . . . , which may resolve the primary issues.” Id. The Court could then “resolve any remaining issues in this case with the benefit of the Ninth Circuit’s analysis.” Id.
Although the stay entered by the Court was limited to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion, the same reasoning supports staying all district court proceedings in this case, including any discovery and Defendants’ upcoming deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and class certification motion. As with Plaintiffs’ TRO motion, the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 6 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 7 of 13
Hawaii appeal is likely to have “significant relevance to—and potentially control”—this Court’s analysis of forthcoming issues in this case. Id.
With respect to discovery, Plaintiffs’ intentions, as they articulated in the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan, revealed that there are likely to be numerous disputes regarding the type of evidence (if any) that is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii is likely to provide important guidance to the Court in resolving these disputes. For example, Plaintiffs anticipate seeking internal government records regarding the intent, design, issuance, and effects of the executive orders. Defendants do not believe these records are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims because, under the applicable law, Defendants need only demonstrate a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the Executive’s exclusion of foreign nationals. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972); see Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792-96 (1977). Moreover, even if a court could look beyond the four corners of the Order, any review would be limited to “openly available data” that is accessible to an “objective observer,” like the law’s text or obvious effects, the policy it replaced, official public statements of the law’s purpose, or “comparable official act[s];” consideration of internal government documents like those sought by Plaintiffs is not permitted. McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 862-63 (2005). The Ninth Circuit is likely to examine these issues in the Hawaii appeal, because Defendants raised similar arguments in opposing preliminary injunctive relief in that case. The Ninth Circuit’s decision, therefore, will likely provide guidance for the parties and the Court in briefing and deciding forthcoming disputes about the scope and nature of any relevant discovery. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he prospect of narrowing the factual and legal issues” counsels in favor of granting a stay.); Fed. Home Loan, 2016 WL 922780, at *9

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 7 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 8 of 13
(granting stay, including of discovery, where appeal of related cases would “help to clarify the issues and questions of law going forward”).
Furthermore, resolution of the Hawaii appeal will likely prove helpful in addressing forthcoming privilege disputes and determining the appropriateness of experts. Defendants believe much of the information Plaintiffs seek is protected by various privileges. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii is likely to impact these privilege issues by clarifying, among other things, what type of evidence is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, if the Ninth Circuit determines (contrary to Defendants’ arguments) that the Hawaii plaintiffs are likely to succeed based solely on the publicly-available information on which they have relied to date, then Plaintiffs here will have no need for privileged information—much less a need that overcomes the Government’s interests. The Ninth Circuit also is likely to address Defendants’ argument that courts cannot second-guess the President’s national-security judgment under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a), which may obviate any dispute over whether expert witnesses are necessary or appropriate.
The Ninth Circuit’s guidance will prove useful in other aspects of this case as well. If the case is not stayed, Defendants would oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and may move for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).3 For the same reasons that the Court determined the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii would be helpful in resolving Plaintiffs’ TRO motion, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would also be useful to the Court in resolving Plaintiffs’ class certification motion and Defendants’ possible motion to dismiss.

3 Concurrently with this motion, Defendants are filing a motion to extend their April 3, 2017, deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and class certification motion until ten days after the Court rules on the instant stay motion.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 8 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 9 of 13

In contrast to the benefits to be obtained by awaiting resolution of the Hawaii appeal, failure to do so could result in “inconsistent rulings” that will need to be “disentangle[d].”

Washington, 2017 WL 1050354, at *5. For example, if the Court determined that discovery of internal government materials is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, but the Ninth Circuit subsequently held that only a facially legitimate and bona fide reason is required, the parties would have wasted resources on irrelevant discovery. Relatedly, if the Court determined that some internal government records are relevant but others are not, and the Ninth Circuit’s subsequent decision conflicts with the line the Court drew, the Court would need to reconcile its past decisions. In short, the Ninth Circuit’s decision could change “the applicable law or the relevant landscape of facts that need to be developed” in such a way that this Court’s intervening rulings will be nullified or will need to be made anew. Id.; see Canal Props. LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., No. 04-cv-3201, 2005 WL 1562807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005). A stay, therefore, is most “efficient for [the court’s] own docket and the fairest course for the parties[.]” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863.

II. ABSENT A STAY, PLAINTIFFS’ ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY WILL IMPOSE A HEAVY BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS AND THE COURT. In addition to “simplifying” the “issues, proof, and questions of law” that will likely arise
as this case proceeds, a stay also will eliminate “the hardship [and] inequity” Defendants would otherwise suffer “in being required to go forward” without guidance from the Ninth Circuit. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. And a stay will reduce this Court’s burden as well.

The sheer volume of discovery that Plaintiffs anticipate is extraordinary given the nature of this case—i.e., a challenge to the President’s authority to exclude foreign nationals. The Supreme Court has instructed that “the Executive’s constitutional responsibilities and status are factors counseling judicial deference and restraint in the conduct of litigation against it.” Cheney,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 9 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 10 of 13

542 U.S. at 385. Plaintiffs, however, want the Court to take the exact opposite approach. As explained above, Plaintiffs contemplate seeking broad and intrusive discovery regarding the underlying factual basis, intent, design, issuance, and effects of the Order and the Revoked Order. Plaintiffs expect their discovery to take eight months to complete and to involve written discovery, document requests, and depositions of government officials.
If Plaintiffs are permitted to pursue discovery before the Ninth Circuit resolves the Hawaii appeal, it will impose an enormous burden on Defendants. Worse still, that burden may prove entirely unnecessary. Defendants intend to oppose discovery on many grounds, which will require briefing by the parties and decisions by the Court on, among other things, the scope of discovery (if any), the applicability of various privileges, and the appropriateness of depositions of any high-level officers. See, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 421-22 (1941); Kyle Eng’g Co. v. Kleppe, 600 F.2d 226, 231 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Heads of government agencies are not normally subject to deposition.”). Such resource-intensive litigation should not proceed in the absence of guidance from the Ninth Circuit that is likely to inform these discovery issues.
The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 385. In the context of this case, that “high respect” warrants a stay that will protect Defendants from the burden of resource-intensive discovery while the Ninth Circuit addresses issues that may inform the appropriateness, scope, and necessity of that discovery. Id.; see, e.g., Rajput v. Synchrony Bank, No. 15-cv-1079, 2016 WL 6433134, at *5, *7 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016) (granting stay where appellate ruling likely would impact “the scope of the issues and discovery needed in th[e] case”); Bd. of Trustees v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 13-cv-10416, 2013 WL 5913986, at *2 (E.D. Mich.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 10 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 11 of 13
Nov. 4, 2013) (refusing to lift stay where decision in related appeal could render discovery unnecessary); cf. Curwen v. Dynan, No. 11-cv-5598, 2012 WL 1237643, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 12, 2012) (staying discovery where “anticipated cost and burden of the discovery process” was high and it was possible, although “by no means certain,” that discovery could be avoided through mediation). III. PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE HARMED BY A BRIEF STAY.
In contrast to the huge (and potentially wasteful) drain on resources that will result if this case proceeds before the Hawaii appeal is resolved, Plaintiffs will not suffer any harm from a stay. The relevant provisions of the Order are currently enjoined nationwide. For that reason, this Court already determined that Plaintiffs would suffer only “minimal,” “if . . . any,” harm from a stay of their TRO motion. Ali, 2017 WL 1057645, at *4.
In addition, Defendants intend to seek expedited review of the Hawaii preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit. Any stay, therefore, will be of limited duration.4 Particularly given the eight-month time frame Plaintiffs have proposed for discovery, a brief delay to clarify the legal landscape will not harm Plaintiffs. See Washington, 2017 WL 1050354, at *4 (relying on “speed with which the Ninth Circuit proceeded in the previous appeal in this case” to support stay); Unitek Solvent, 2014 WL 12576648, at *3 (concluding delay was “reasonable” where appeal was “expedited in accordance with Ninth Circuit rules relating to preliminary injunction appeals”). Once the Hawaii appeal is resolved, Plaintiffs can seek any necessary and appropriate discovery, guided by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim they will suffer harm from a stay. And, even if Plaintiffs could conceive of some

4 At Defendants’ urging, the Fourth Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule in IRAP under which briefing will be completed on April 21, 2017, with oral argument set for May 8, 2017. See IRAP v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 23, 2017), ECF No. 25.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 11 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 12 of 13

harm, it would not outweigh the harm to Defendants from denying a stay—particularly in light of the significant separation-of-powers concerns raised by Plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery.
CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should grant Defendants’ motion to stay district court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.

DATED: March 30, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
GISELA A. WESTWATER Assistant Director
/s/ Stacey I. Young Senior Litigation Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: stacey.young@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP - 12 Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85 Filed 03/30/17 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 30, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Resolution of Appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.
/s/ Stacey I. Young STACEY I. YOUNG

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAI’I V. TRUMP Ali v. Trump, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00135 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85-1 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 2

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135 (JLR)

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

14 States, et al.,

DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

Defendants.

PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN

15

HAWAII V. TRUMP

16

17

18
Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending
19
Resolution of Appeal in Hawaii v. Trump, any response and reply thereto, and the entire record
20
herein, it is hereby
21
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay is GRANTED; and it is
22
FURTHER ORDERED that all district court proceedings in this case are stayed pending
23
24 resolution of the appeal of the preliminary injunction entered in Hawaii v. Trump, No. CV 17-

25 00050 (D. Haw.).

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 1

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 85-1 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 2

1
Dated this ______ day of _________, 2017.
2

3

4

_______________________________

HON. JAMES L. ROBART

5

United States District Judge

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL IN HAWAII V. TRUMP [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 2

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 94 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 27

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

11

12 JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

15 DONALD TRUMP, President of the United TO DISMISS

States, et al., 16

Defendants.

Noted for Consideration:

17

May 26, 2017

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 2 of 27

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2 Consistent with the Executive’s broad constitutional authority over foreign affairs and
3

national security, Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of Title 8 expressly authorize the President to 4

5 restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest. Exercising that

6 authority, the President issued Executive Order No. 13,780 (Order), which, inter alia,

7 temporarily suspends entry of certain aliens from six countries that the Administration
8 determined pose a heightened terrorism risk. 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (2017). That suspension
9
10 enables this Administration to most effectively review the Nation’s screening and vetting

11 procedures to ensure they adequately detect terrorists. For the past 30 years, every President has

12 invoked his power to protect the Nation by suspending entry of categories of aliens; the Order is
13 no different. The Order revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 (“Revoked Order”), which was 14
issued on January 27, 2017. After the Ninth Circuit declined to stay a nationwide injunction 15 16 against it, the President issued a new Order that applies only to certain aliens outside the United

17 States without a visa—that is, individuals who “ha[ve] no constitutional rights regarding” their

18 admission. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). Even as to them, the Order includes a

19 comprehensive waiver process to mitigate any undue hardship. The Order also eliminates any
20 preference for religious minorities.
21

22

Despite these revisions, plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the application of Sections 1(f),

23 2 and 3. Plaintiffs are not entitled to such relief because their claims are not justiciable. The

24 nonresident, unadmitted alien plaintiffs are not entitled to judicial review, and their petitioning 25
relatives cannot demonstrate any cognizable injury fairly traceable to the Order unless and until 26 27 their alien relatives have been found eligible for a visa and denied a waiver. Plaintiffs’ claims
28 also fail on the merits. Two statutory provisions grant the President broad authority

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 1

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 3 of 27

1 encompassing the Order’s temporary entry suspension, and plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that this 2 suspension is illegal or unconstitutional. For these reasons, this Court should dismiss plaintiffs’

3 amended complaint.

4
5 III.
6
7

II. BACKGROUND STATUTORY BACKGROUND The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq., governs admission of

8 aliens into the United States. Admission generally requires a valid visa. Id. §§1181,

9 1182(a)(7)(A)(i), (B)(i)(II), 1203. The process of applying for a visa results in a decision by a

10 State Department consular officer. Id. §§1201(a)(1), 1202, 1204. Eligibility for a visa depends
11 on many factors.
12 Congress created various avenues to admission, and it also accorded the Executive broad
13
14 discretion to restrict or suspend entry of aliens. First, Section 1182(f) provides:

15

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens

16

into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the

17

entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose

on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

18

19 Second, Section 1185(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an alien to enter or attempt to enter the country

20 “except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and

21 exceptions as the President may prescribe.”1 22

23 1 Congress has established a Visa Waiver Program (Program) that enables certain nationals of

24 participating countries to seek temporary admission without a visa. 8 U.S.C. §§1182(a)(7)(B)(iv),

25

1187. In 2015, however, Congress excluded from travel under the Program individuals from Program-participating countries who are dual nationals of, or who recently traveled to, specific

26 non-Program countries. Id. §1187(a)(12). Congress itself specifically excluded nationals of countries participating in the Program who are dual nationals of or had recently visited Iraq or
27 Syria, where “[t]he Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) . . . maintain[s] a formidable

28 force,” and dual nationals of and recent visitors to countries designated by the Secretary of State

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 2

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 4 of 27

1 IV. 2

THE REVOKED ORDER On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order No. 13,769 ( “Revoked

3 Order”), which was revoked by the new Order on March 16. The Revoked Order was challenged

4 in multiple courts including this one, which preliminarily enjoined it nationwide. Wash. v. Trump, 5
No. 17-41, 2007 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The Ninth Circuit declined to stay the 6 7 injunction pending appeal. Wash. v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
8 Acknowledging that the injunction may have been “overbroad,” the court did not narrow it,

9 concluding that “[t]he political branches are far better equipped” to do so. Id. at 1166-67.
10 VI. THE ORDER 11
Responding to the Ninth Circuit’s invitation, and at the joint urging of the Attorney 12 13 General and Secretary of Homeland Security,2 the President issued the Order on March 6, 2017.

14 The Order was to take on March 16, at which time it would replace the Revoked Order.

15

The Order’s purpose is to enable the Administration to assess whether current screening

16 and vetting procedures are sufficient to detect terrorists seeking to infiltrate the Nation. Order §
17 1(f). To facilitate that review, the President ordered a temporary, 90-day pause on entry of certain
18

19 foreign nationals from six nations previously “identified as presenting heightened concerns about

20

21 as state sponsors of terrorism (currently Iran, Sudan, and Syria). 8 U.S.C. §1187(a)(12)(A)(i)-

22

(ii). Congress also authorized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate additional countries of concern, considering whether a country is a “safe haven for terrorists,”

23 “whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence” in the country, and “whether

the presence of an alien in the country . . . increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible 24 threat to” U.S. national security, id. §1187(a)(12)(D)(i)-(ii), and in February 2016 DHS excluded

25 recent visitors to Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, noting that the designation was “indicative of the Department’s continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters,”

26 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travelrestrictions-visa-waiver-

program. 27 2 Joint Ltr. to President (Mar. 6, 2017), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/

28 17_0306_S1_DHS-DOJ-POTUS-letter_0.pdf (Ex. A).

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 3

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 5 of 27

1 terrorism and travel to the United States”: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Id. §

2 1(a), (d)-(f). Each of the designated countries “is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been

3 significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones.” Order
4 §1 (d). The Order details the circumstances that give rise to “heightened risk[s]” that terrorists 5
from those countries could enter the United States and that those countries’ governments may 6 7 lack the “willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals

8 seeking to travel to the United States” to screen them properly.

9

To that end, the Order “suspend[s] for 90 days” the “entry into the United States of

10 nationals of those six countries.” Order §2 (c). In response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, however,
11 the Order clarifies that the suspension applies only to aliens who: (1) are outside the United States
12

13 on the Order’s effective date, (2) do not have a valid visa on that date, and (3) did not have a

14 valid visa at 5:00 P.M. (EST) on January 27, 2017. Order §3 (a).

15

The Order also contains a detailed waiver provision. Order §3(c). It permits consular

16 officials (and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection or his delegee) to grant
17
18 case-by-case waivers to individuals found otherwise eligible for visas where denying entry

19 “would cause undue hardship” and “entry would not pose a threat to national security and would

20 be in the national interest.” Id. Moreover, §3(c) lists circumstances where waivers could be

21 considered, including for (among others):

22

• foreign nationals who were previously “admitted to the United States for a continuous

23

period of work, study, or other long-term activity,” but who are currently outside the

24

country and seeking to reenter;

25

• individuals who seek entry for “significant business or professional obligations”; and

26

• individuals who seek entry “to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a

27

spouse, child, or parent) who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien

lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa.”

28

Finally, the Order specifies that requests for waivers will be processed “as part of the visa

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 4

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 6 of 27

1 issuance process.” Order §3 (c); see also U.S. Dep’t of State, Executive Order on Visas (Mar. 22, 2 2017), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html.

3 V. 4 5

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT, EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND MOTION TO CERTIFY A CLASS
On March 10, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, a second motion to certify a class,

6 and a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief.3 The plaintiffs

7 named in the amended complaint are (1) family-based immigrant visa petitioners in the United
8 States, or (2) beneficiaries of an approved, family-based immigrant visa petition who are
9 10 nationals of one of the designated countries and have applied for and have been refused or intend
11 to apply for an immigrant visa overseas. To obtain a family-based immigrant visa, a U.S. citizen

12 or lawful permanent resident (LPR) must file an immigrant visa petition (Form I-130). See 8
13 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1). If all the relevant requirements are satisfied, the beneficiary may apply for a 14
visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a); 8 U.S.C. § 1202(a). The decision to issue or refuse a visa application 15

16

17 3 On March 15, 2017, the District Court for the District of Hawaii entered a TRO that enjoined enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of the Order nationwide. See Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50,

18 2017 WL 1011673, at *1 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017). The following day, the District Court for the

19

District of Maryland entered a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Order. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 17-cv-361, 2017 WL

20 1018235, at *18 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017).

In light of these decisions and the possibility of appeal, this Court sua sponte stayed consideration 21 of plaintiffs’ TRO motion. “Given the significant overlap of issues between this case and

22

Hawaii,” the Court reasoned that “the Ninth Circuit’s rulings on [the Order] in [Hawaii] will [] likely have significant relevance to—and potentially control—the court’s subsequent ruling

23 here.” Ali v. Trump, 2017 WL 1057645, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017). The Court further

noted that this stay would permit the Court to “conserve its resources and . . . benefit from any 24 Ninth Circuit rulings in Hawaii.” Id. The district court in Hawaii converted its TRO into a

25 preliminary injunction on March 29, 2017, see Hawaii, No. CV 17-00050, ECF No. 270. Defendants appealed that decision, see id., ECF No. 271, which granted a motion for expedited

26 briefing as to a stay motion and the merits. State of Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589, ECF No. 14

(9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2017). The case should be fully briefed by April 28, 2017, and is scheduled for 27 argument on May 15. Id.

28

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 5

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 7 of 27

1 rests with the consular officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). Neither the approval of a petition nor

2 the issuance of an immigrant visa guarantees admission or entry to the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

3 §§ 1154(e), 1201(h). Those decisions rest with the DHS officer following inspection at a U.S.
4 port of entry. 5
The 10 named plaintiffs include six aliens currently outside the United States, each of 6 7 whom is an unadmitted national of one of the six identified countries, and none of whom has

8 been found eligible for a visa (collectively, “alien plaintiffs”). Each of the remaining plaintiffs

9 (collectively, “petitioner plaintiffs”) resides in the United States and filed an immigrant visa

10 petition, as a parent or a spouse, on behalf of at least one of the alien plaintiffs. These plaintiffs
11 include two U.S. citizens and two LPR petitioners.
12

13

Of the six alien plaintiffs, three have not yet applied for a visa. See ECF No. 71-1

14 (declaration of Chloe Dybdahl) (Dybdahl Decl.). The other three applied for immigrant visas but

15 their applications were refused under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). Id.
16 VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW
17 Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks subject matter
18
19 jurisdiction, which the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing. Rio Prop’s, Inc. v. Rio Int’l

20 Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). A court may not exercise jurisdiction if a claimant

21 lacks standing or the claim is unripe. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560
22 (1992); Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). A district
23 court is free to hear evidence regarding jurisdiction and rule prior to trial. Kingman Reef Atoll
24
25 Investments, LLC v. U.S., 541 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2008).

26

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint.

27 Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). A complaint must
28 be dismissed when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim showing an entitlement to relief.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 6

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 8 of 27

1 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). Dismissal is also warranted where a 2 complaint fails to allege facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

3 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Although the Court must accept as true all factual allegations

4 in the complaint, dismissal is appropriate if a claim for relief is not plausible under the facts

5 alleged. Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003).
6

7

ARGUMENT

8 I.

THERE IS NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE

9

Plaintiffs’ claims fail because they lack Article III or prudential standing, or their claims

10 are not yet ripe. Plaintiffs must demonstrate a “legally and judicially cognizable” injury, Raines
11 v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819 (1997), consisting of, at minimum, a “concrete and particularized”
12 injury that is “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
13
14 Moreover, “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each

15 form of relief that is sought.” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008). Plaintiffs have not done

16 so.
17 First, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability has long provided that an alien abroad
18
19 cannot obtain judicial review of a denial of a visa. See Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180,

20 184 n.3, 185 n.6 (1956); Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016). The

21 Ninth Circuit has recognized a “limited exception” “where the denial of a visa implicates the

22 constitutional rights of American citizens,” Cardenas, 826 F.3d at 1169, but most of the petitioner
23 plaintiffs’ claims—and all of the alien plaintiffs’ claims—fall outside that limited exception.
24

25

Second, the purported injury of a delay in visa issuance, should the non-resident

26 unadmitted aliens be found eligible for visas, does not confer standing. See Kodra v. Sec’y, Dep’t

27 of State, 903 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2012). Here, however, that is precisely what 28
plaintiffs complain of: they seek to challenge the Order’s temporary, 90-day suspension on entry,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 7

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(2402)F30il5e-7d17014/14/17 Page 9 of 27

1 which is subject to waivers even during that brief period.

2

Third, even if the petitioner plaintiffs had standing, their claims are not ripe. “The

3 doctrine[] of . . . ripeness . . . originate[s] in Article III’s ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ language, no less
4 than standing does.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 351 (2006). Ripeness ensures 5
that courts “avoid[] . . . premature adjudication,” particularly where future determinations may 6 7 change the character of the controversy or obviate the need for judicial relief altogether. Nat’l

8 Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2009). Here, the petitioner

9 plaintiffs’ claims are unripe—their relatives are all individuals for whom the Order specifically
10 contemplates the possibility of waivers if they are found otherwise eligible for visas. See Order
11 §§ 3(c)(iv), 6(c). Until the alien plaintiffs are denied a visa based on the Order, their ability to
12
13 enter “rests upon ‘contingent future events.’” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998).

14

Fourth, Plaintiffs’ attempts to demonstrate standing based on the Establishment Clause

15 fail. Although “the concept of injury for standing purposes is particularly elusive in 16
Establishment Clause cases,” a plaintiff cannot establish standing without showing a personal 17 18 injury beyond “the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct
19 with which one disagrees.” See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of

20 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 485-86 (1982). Plaintiffs, rather, must demonstrate a

21 “particular and concrete injury to a personal constitutional right.” Id. at 482. This, for example,
22 could include a “direct harm of what is claimed to be an establishment of religion, such as a
23
24 mandatory prayer in a public school classroom,” or that plaintiffs “have incurred a cost or been

25 denied a benefit on account of their religion,” which, for example, “can result from alleged

26 discrimination in the tax code, such as when the availability of a tax exemption is conditioned on

27 religious affiliation.” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 133-34 (2011); see
28 also Catholic League for Religious & Civ. Rights v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 8

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 10 of 27

1 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

2

Plaintiffs make neither showing here. First, they cannot demonstrate “direct harm”

3 because the Order does not require plaintiffs to “see or do anything.” Lew, 773 F.3d at 820; see
4 also Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (no personal 5
injury where “nothing in the Pledge [or the statute codifying it] actually requires anyone to recite 6 7 it”). In other words, the Order does not “convey[] a government message of disapproval and

8 hostility toward their religious beliefs” that causes them to change their behavior by, for example,

9 “forcing them to curtail their political activities . . . .” Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1053
10 Likewise, plaintiffs cannot show they have incurred a cost or been denied a benefit on
11 account of their religion. No benefit has been denied based on the Order—each alien plaintiff
12
13 either has not made a visa application or has and was not found eligible. See, e.g., Lew, 773 F.3d

14 at 821; see also Dybdahl Decl. Indeed, given the comprehensive waiver process, plaintiffs’

15 claims with respect to aliens seeking entry or a visa in the future are entirely speculative and
16 therefore not ripe under Article III. See, e.g., Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1091
17 18 (4th Cir. 1997).

19

Finally, plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim is barred by prudential standing

20 limitations. A plaintiff “generally must assert his own legal rights and interests,” except in the
21 limited circumstances where he has “third party standing to assert the rights of another.” 22
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129 –30 (2004).4 Here, the petitioner plaintiffs cannot assert 23 24 an Establishment Clause claim on behalf of third-party aliens abroad. Lacking any substantial

25

26

4 Although this rule has traditionally been framed as a “prudential standing” requirement,

27

the Supreme Court recently reserved the question whether it is better characterized as a limitation on the “right of action on the claim.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134

28 S. Ct. 1377, 1387 n.3 (2014). Regardless of the label, plaintiffs here fail to satisfy the substance of this well-established rule.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 9

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 11 of 27

1 connections to this country, those aliens abroad possess no Establishment Clause rights, see

2 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990), and no constitutional rights

3 regarding entry into this country, see Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762. Nor can those plaintiffs assert a

4 claim that their own Establishment Clause rights are being violated because their religion is 5
entirely immaterial to the purported discrimination against their family members abroad. See 6
7 Smith v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 641 F.3d 197, 207 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

8 II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM

9

A. The Order Is A Valid Exercise Of The President’s Authority

10

1. The Order falls squarely within the President’s broad authority

11

under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a)

12

The “power to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal

13 international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers—a
14 power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of the government.” Kleindienst v.
15 Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 765 (1972) (internal quotation omitted). Congress also conferred
16
17 expansive authority on the President, including the two provisions the Order invokes.

18

First, Section 1182(f) provides that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any

19 aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the 20
United States, he may . . . for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all 21 22 aliens or of any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants,” or “impose on the entry of
23 aliens any restrictions he deems to be appropriate.” “The President’s sweeping proclamation

24 power [under Section 1182(f)] provides a safeguard against the danger posed by any particular

25 case or class of cases that is not covered by one of the [inadmissibility] categories in section
26 1182(a).” Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1049 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1
27
28 (1987); see Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744 n.9 (9th Cir. 1980). Every President

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 10

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 12 of 27

1 over the last thirty years has invoked that authority to suspend or restrict entry of certain classes 2 of aliens.5

3

Second, Section 1185(a) broadly authorizes the “President” to “prescribe” reasonable

4 “rules, regulations, and orders,” and “limitations and exceptions” regarding entry of aliens. That 5
provision is the latest in a line of statutory grants of authority tracing back nearly a century. See 6
7 Pub. L. No. 65-154, § 1(a), 40 Stat. 559 (1918). Previously limited to times of war or declared

8 national emergency, Congress removed that limitation in 1978, when it enacted Section 1185(a)

9 in its current form. Pub. L. 95-426, §707(a), 92 Stat. 963, 992-93 (1978).
10 Both of those provisions comfortably encompass the Order’s temporary suspension of
11 entry of aliens from six countries that the President—in consultation with the Attorney General
12
13 and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security—concluded required special precautions

14 while the review of existing screening and vetting protocols is completed. That temporary

15 measure is a paradigmatic exercise of the President’s authority to “suspend the entry” of “any
16 class of aliens” he finds may be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. §
17 18 1182(f), and to prescribe “limitations” and “exceptions” on entry, id. § 1185(a)(1).

19

2. Section 1152 does not restrict the President’s broad authority

20

Plaintiffs contend that Section 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination on the basis

21 of nationality in the allocation of immigrant visas, bars the President from drawing nationality-
22 based distinctions under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a), notwithstanding the fact that Presidents
23

24

5
25

See, e.g., Proclamation 5517 (1986) (Reagan; Cuban nationals ad immigrants); Exec. Order

No. 12,807 (1992) (George H.W. Bush; government officials who impeded anti-human-

26 trafficking efforts); Proclamation 8342 (2009) (George W. Bush; same); Proclamation 6958 (1996) (Clinton; government officials and armed forces of Sudan); Proclamation 8693 (Obama;
27 aliens subject to U.N. Security Council travel bans and meeting the criteria for certain financial

28 sanctions).

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 11

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 13 of 27

1 have done just that for decades. Plaintiffs are wrong. Section 1152(a)(1)(A) does not restrict the

2 President’s authority to draw nationality-based distinctions under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a).

3 Section 1152(a)(1)(A) was enacted in 1965 to abolish the system of nationality-based quotas for
4 immigrant visas. Congress replaced that system with uniform, per-country percentage limits. 5
Section 1152(a)(1)(A) addresses the subject of relative “preference” or “priority” in the allocation 6 7 of immigrant visa numbers by making clear that the uniform percentage limits are the only limits

8 that may be placed on the number of immigrant visas issued to nationals of any country.

9

Section 1152(a)(1)(A) thus governs the ordinary process of allocating and granting

10 immigrant visas. Its text governs only “the issuance of an immigrant visa”; it does not purport to
11 restrict the President’s antecedent, longstanding authority to suspend entry of “any class of
12

13 aliens” or to prescribe reasonable “rules, regulations, and orders” regarding entry as he deems

14 appropriate. And it has never been understood to prohibit the President from drawing nationality-

15 based distinctions under Section 1182(f). In addition, Section 1185(a)(1) grants the President
16 broad general authority to adopt “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” governing entry of
17 18 aliens, “subject to such limitations and exceptions as [he] may prescribe.” Id. § 1185(a)(1).

19

Interpreting Section 1152(a)(1)(A) to prohibit the President from drawing these and other

20 nationality-based distinctions would raise serious constitutional questions that the Court must

21 avoid if possible. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades
22 Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988). Limiting the entry of nationals of particular countries can be
23
24 critical to the President’s ability to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs and protect its security.

25 Yet plaintiffs’ statutory interpretation would completely disable the President from restricting

26 the entry of immigrants from any country—even one with which we were on the verge of war.

27 To read Section 1152(a)(1)(A) as narrowing the President’s Section 1182(f) authority
28 would be to treat it as a partial “‘repeal[] by implication,’” which courts will not do unless

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 12

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 14 of 27

1 Congress’s “‘intention’” is “‘clear and manifest.’” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders 2 of Wildlife (NAHB), 551 U.S. 644, 662, 664 n.8 (2007). Sections 1152(a)(1)(A) and 1182(f) can,

3 and therefore must, be reconciled by sensibly reading Section 1152(a)(1)(A)’s general, default
4 provisions as not affecting the President’s authority to suspend entry under Section 1182(f). See 5
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2070-71 (2012). And, even 6 7 if Section 1152(a)(1)(A) could be construed to narrow Section 1182(f), it cannot be read to

8 narrow Section 1185(a)—which was substantially amended in 1978, after Section

9 1152(a)(1)(A)’s enactment. Nothing in Section 1185(a)’s current text or post-1978 history limits

10 the President’s authority to restrict entry by nationals of particular countries.
11 B. The Order Does Not Violate The Due Process Clause
12

13

1. Plaintiffs lack due-process rights with respect to their entry

14

The only persons subject to the Order are foreign nationals outside the United States with

15 no visa or other authorization to enter this country. Order § 3(a)-(b). An “unadmitted and

16 nonresident alien” has “no constitutional right of entry to this country,” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762,
17 and “[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien
18
19 denied entry is concerned.” 338 U.S.at 544; see also Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059,

20 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2008). Congress, with limited exception, has not provided for any judicial

21 review of a visa denial. See, e.g., 6 U.S.C. § 236(f ) (providing that the designation of authorities
22 in Section 236 does not give rise to a private right of action against a consular officer to challenge
23 a decision to issue or refuse a visa); 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i) (no judicial review of visa revocation
24 25 except in limited circumstances not applicable here).6 Thus, under the firmly entrenched doctrine

26

27 6 Congress has repeatedly acknowledged the consular nonreviewability doctrine and chosen 28 to leave it undisturbed. See ECF No. 71 at 20 n.9.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 13

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 15 of 27

1 of consular nonreviewability and the Supreme Court jurisprudence that cements its footing, the

2 alien plaintiffs are entitled to no judicial review of a visa refusal or revocation under the Order.

3

2. The petitioner plaintiffs’ due-process claims lack merit

4

First, due process confers no entitlement on persons in the United States regarding the

5 entry of others. See Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2129, 2131 (plurality opinion) (“There is no such
6

7 constitutional right.”) The Ninth Circuit did hold that a U.S. citizen spouse had a protected liberty

8 interest in her husband’s entry. See Bustamante, 531 F.3d at 1062. But Justice Kennedy’s

9 concurring opinion in Din expressly reserved judgment on whether a citizen in the United States
10 has any due-process right even with respect to entry of her spouse; he found no “need [to] decide
11 that issue” because “the Government satisfied any” due-process “obligation it might have had.”
12
13 Din, 135 S.Ct. at 2139, 2141. There (and in Bustamante), the alleged due-process right was tied

14 to the fundamental right to marry, see id. at 2134 (plurality op.)—i.e., “a protected liberty interest

15 in” and “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage,” Bustamante, 531 F.3d at 1062. To 16
the extent that plaintiffs seek to assert claims based on the entry of non-spouses, or based on the 17 18 rights of LPRs, Din and Bustamante do not support their claims. See, e.g., Santos v. Lynch, 2016
19 WL 3549366, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (declining to extend Din to find “liberty interest

20 as an adult child to live in the United States with her parents”); L.H. v. Kerry, No. 14-06212, slip

21 op. 3-4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017) (same; daughter, son-in-law, and grandson).
22 Second, assuming the Due Process Clause applies to the petitioner plaintiffs, their
23
24 procedural due-process claims fail because they do not explain what further process the

25 Constitution should require. Of course, one reason for this is that their claims are premature, filed

26 in advance of consular visa adjudications rather than after them, as was the case in Din and

27 Mandel. Unlike the plaintiff in Din, the petitioner plaintiffs here do not seek additional
28 explanation for an individualized immigration decision or contend that officials misapplied a

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 14

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 16 of 27

1 legal standard. Instead, they challenge the President’s decision to suspend the entry of certain

2 nationals of six countries. Plaintiffs do not and cannot claim that due process requires notice or

3 individualized hearings where, as here, the government acts through necessary categorical

4 judgments rather than individual adjudications. See Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of

5 Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 446 (1915).
6

7

Third, even if some individualized process were required, the Order provides it through

8 the review of waiver requests. Order § 3(c)(iv); see id. § 3(c)(i)-(ix). In Justice Kennedy’s

9 concurring opinion in Din, the only process due was a notice of the decision along with a citation
10 to the statutory basis for the refusal. 135 S.Ct. at 2140–41. The waiver process provides an avenue
11 for those who establish they are otherwise eligible for visas to enter the United States.
12
13 Importantly, visa processing will continue to move forward. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Executive

14 Order on Visas (2016), https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258249.pdf.

15

C. The Order Does Not Discriminate Based On Religion

16 This Court should analyze plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim under the Mandel
17 standard and uphold the Order under it, given the President’s facially legitimate, bona fide reason.
18

19

The Supreme Court has made clear that “[w]hen the Executive exercises” its authority to

20 exclude aliens from the country “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the

21 courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its
22 justification against the” asserted constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Mandel, 408 U.S. 770.
23 Mandel itself rejected a claim that the Executive’s exclusion of an alien violated the First
24
25 Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who sought to “hear[] and meet[] with” the alien. Id. at 760,

26 763-70. Because the Attorney General had a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for

27 denying the waiver—that the alien had violated the conditions of prior visas—the Court declined
28 to “look behind the exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 769-70.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 15

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 17 of 27

1

Mandel compels rejection of plaintiffs’ claims because the Order is premised on a facially

2 legitimate, bona fide reason: protecting national security. As discussed supra, the President

3 determined that a review of the Nation’s screening and vetting procedures is necessary, and that
4 a temporary pause in entry from six countries of concern is important to “prevent infiltration by 5
foreign terrorists” and “reduce investigative burdens” while the review is ongoing. Order § 2(c). 6 7 To the extent this Court may review the order for bad faith, plaintiffs cannot meet their burden

8 of demonstrating it. See Din, 135 S.Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (a court may question

9 a consular officer’s stated reason for denying a particular visa upon “an affirmative showing of
10 bad faith . . . plausibly alleged with sufficient particularity,” and even then only where the denial
11 is alleged to violate a U.S. citizen’s fundamental rights). The President’s actions in response to
12
13 concerns raised by the Ninth Circuit regarding the Revoked Order—and taken after consultation

14 with the Executive officers responsible for legal, foreign-relations, national-security, and

15 immigration matters—demonstrate good faith. 16
Even under domestic Establishment Clause standards, the Order is valid. It makes no 17 18 mention of religion, and its operative effects are unrelated to religious belief or affiliation. See
19 Sarsour v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0120, slip. Op. at 18 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017) (finding that the

20 Order is facially neutral and does not distinguish based on religion). The Order is thus

21 qualitatively different from the type of governmental action held to be unconstitutional.
22 Plaintiffs attempt to impute a religious motive by focusing on campaign statements and
23
24 second-guessing the Order’s national-security rationale. See, e.g., ECF No. 52 at ¶¶ 87-90. But

25 as the Supreme Court has made clear, official action must be adjudged by its “‘text, legislative

26 history, and implementation of the statute or comparable official act[ion],’” not through “judicial

27 psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844,
28 862 (2005) (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000)). Stigmatization

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 16

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 18 of 27

1 and alienation caused by the government sending a message one way or another regarding

2 religion is the harm that Establishment Clause jurisprudence seeks to avoid. See Board of Kiryas

3 Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 696 (1994). Where governmental action does not advance such a
4 message, the Establishment Clause thus cannot be violated. 5
Under the controlling Establishment Clause test, “government action must have a secular 6 7 purpose, ‘its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,’”

8 and it “must not foster excessive entanglement with religion.” Catholic League for Religious &

9 Civil Rights v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
10 (quoting Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971)). Plaintiffs allege that the Order’s
11 purpose “is not secular” and its “principal effect is to inhibit religion.” ECF No. 52 at ¶ 189. Yet
12
13 plaintiffs’ allegations raise neither Lemon claim past the plausibility threshold. Plaintiffs’

14 allegations that, because the six identified countries have majority Muslim populations,

15 subjecting their nationals to the Order’s temporary procedures “will have the intended effect of 16
limiting the ability of Muslims to immigrate to the United States and further stigmatize Islam as 17 18 disfavored by the U.S. government,” id., where not flatly contradicted by the terms and effect of
19 the Order itself, are so conclusory and lacking detail or explanation as to fail to raise the inference

20 of wrongdoing to at least the level of plausibility. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

21

1. The Order’s effect is to heighten security, not inhibit religion.

22 The “key consideration” in the Lemon analysis “is whether the government action
23

‘primarily’ disapproves of religious beliefs.” Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1398 24

25 (9th Cir. 1994). Because disapproval or inhibition of religion must “objectively be construed as

26 the primary focus or effect,” any message an observer would have to “infer” necessarily fails this

27 objective test. See Am. Family Ass’n, Inc. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1122
28 (9th Cir. 2002); Vernon, 27 F.3d at 1398.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 17

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 19 of 27

1

That the countries covered by Section 2(c) have “predominantly Muslim” populations,

2 ECF No. 52 at ¶ 189, does not establish that the primary effect of Section 2(c) is to disapprove

3 or inhibit the practice of Islam. Those countries were identified by Congress and a prior
4 Administration for reasons that plaintiffs do not contend were religiously motivated or had a 5
primary effect of inhibiting religion. The Order temporarily pauses entry from the countries in 6 7 order to “prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists” during the review of screening and vetting

8 procedures. Section 2(c) covers every national of those countries, including non-Muslims, if they

9 meet the Order’s criteria. Given the security orientation of the Order and absence of any reference
10 to religion, see Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1027, plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that any
11 discernable religious animus or inhibitory effect would be more than an “incidental or ancillary”
12
13 addition to the secular, security objective. See Am. Family Ass’n, 277 F.3d at 1123.

14

Moreover, to regard the dominant religion of a foreign country as evidence of religious

15 discrimination could intrude on every foreign policy decision made by the political branches 16
because such measures often address particular nations with a dominant religion. See Wash. v. 17 18 Trump, ---F.3d ---, 2017 WL 992527, at *7 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2017) (Bybee. J., dissenting from
19 denial of rehearing en banc). In light of this overwhelming rejection of religious discrimination

20 in a measure that targeted a far greater number of majority Muslim nations, plaintiffs’ allegations

21 fail to plausibly suggest that a “primary” religious effect may be inferred from the Order.

22

2. The Order cannot be restrained on the basis of campaign statements or

23

the Revoked Order

24

As required by Lemon’s first prong, the Order serves a secular purpose, which is entitled

25 to “deference” so long as it is “not merely secondary to a religious objective.” McCreary, 545
26

27 U.S. at 864. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the Order has an impermissible “ostensibly and

28 predominant purpose of advancing religion,” however, because it is qualitatively different from

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 18

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 20 of 27

1 the types of governmental actions struck down on that basis. Id. at 860. The Order is nothing like

2 the nakedly sectarian symbols or actions in the four cases where the Supreme Court has found

3 an impermissible religious purpose since Lemon. See McCreary, 545 U.S. at 859. In those cases,
4 a governmental entity erected or promoted the Ten Commandments, the Christian crèche or 5
cross, or prayer in a public forum—actions which unquestionably involved religiously affiliated 6 7 symbols or activities. Id. at 859 n.9 (listing cases where these violations occurred); see also

8 Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1049-50 (listing Supreme Court cases finding standing to pursue

9 an Establishment Clause claim, all of which involved a religious symbol or text).
10 Even where courts have struck actions under this Lemon prong that are not merely
11 educational or symbolic, but have the effect of law, such enactments invariably reference and
12
13 draw distinctions on the basis of religion. See, e.g., Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1049-50

14 (resolution specifically named and criticized directive by Catholic cardinal and Vatican).

15 Plaintiffs can point to no support from the Supreme Court or circuits for their suggestion that an
16 Executive Branch policy directive can be found to have an impermissible religious purpose when
17 18 it lacks the barest mention of an idea, symbol, or practice associated with any or all religions.

19

While plaintiffs assert the need for a contextual inquiry that would encompass campaign

20 statements, McCreary itself illustrates that searching the legislative context and sequence of

21 events for a “legitimizing secular purpose” is, as that phrase suggests, an attempt to rebut the
22 presumptively religious purpose—i.e., “openly available data support[] a commonsense
23
24 conclusion that a religious objective permeate[s]”—that arises when the government employs an

25 overtly religious symbol or names a particular sect, as occurred in McCreary with the County’s

26 attempt to display the Ten Commandments. See 545 U.S. at 869-73. The contextual inquiry was

27 necessary to look for an alternative explanation to the “commonsense” presumption of religious
28 intent drawn from information with an objective portent (i.e., a Commandments display

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 19

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 21 of 27

1 undeniably has some relation to religion), that would evince a redeeming secular purpose. See

2 id. No such contextual inquiry is thus required where, as here, the religiously neutral enactment

3 in a separate policy sphere fails to trigger the “commonsense” presumption of religious purpose.

4

Even if the Court could look behind the President’s facially legitimate reasons for

5 suspending the entry of certain foreign nationals, campaign statements by the President or his
6

7 surrogates that do not directly concern the Order are irrelevant. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548

8 U.S. 557, 623-24 & n.52 (2006). Using comments by political candidates to question the purpose

9 of later action is particularly problematic. Candidates are not government actors, and statements
10 of what they might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are
11 not “official act[s].” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862. They generally are made without the benefit of
12
13 advice from an as-yet-unformed Administration, and cannot bind elected officials later on. See

14 Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 780 (2002). Indeed, such statements by private

15 persons cannot reveal “the government’s ostensible object,” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 859-60, 16
because it is only an “official objective” of favoring or disfavoring religion gleaned from “readily 17 18 discoverable fact” that implicates the Clause.” Id. at 862; see Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700,
19 715 (2010) (plurality op.) (rejecting finding that Congress’ stated purpose for land-transfer statute

20 was “illicit” because the court “took insufficient account of the context in which the statute was

21 enacted and the reasons for its passage”). Thus, Courts of Appeals routinely decline to rely on
22 private communications that “cannot be attributed to any government actor” to impute an
23
24 improper purpose to government action. Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140, 147 (4th

25 Cir. 2010); see Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017, 1031 (10th Cir. 2008). Permitting

26 campaign statements to contradict official pronouncements of the government’s objectives would

27 inevitably “chill political debate during campaigns.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068
28 (10th Cir. 1995) (declining to rely on campaign statements). It also would be unworkable,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 20

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 22 of 27

1 requiring the “judicial psychoanalysis” McCreary repudiated. 545 U.S. at 862; see Board of 2 Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 249 (1990). (“[W]hat is relevant is the legislative purpose

3 of the statute, not the possibly religious motives of the legislators . . . .”) (emphasis in original).

4

Even considering plaintiffs’ proffered extrinsic evidence, none of it demonstrates that this

5 Order was driven by religious animus. Plaintiffs’ marquee statement proves the point: they cite
6

7 a 15-month-old campaign press release advocating a “complete shutdown” on Muslims’ entering

8 the country. Am. Compl. ¶ 87. That release and other proffered statements reveal nothing about

9 the Order’s aim—far from banning Muslims indefinitely, the Order pauses for 90 days entry from
10 countries previously identified as posing particular risks, which is subject to religion-neutral
11 exceptions and waivers. There is a disconnect between plaintiffs’ imputed purpose and the
12
13 Order’s actual effect. And even if that was not so, “the substantive revisions reflected in [the

14 Order] have reduced the probative value of the President’s [past] statements” and undercut any

15 argument that “the predominate purpose of [the Order] is to discriminate against Muslims based

16 on their religion.” Sarsour, slip op. at 24.7
17

18

D. Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claim is Unavailing

19

Plaintiffs claim that the Order violates the equal protection component of the Fifth

20 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. But again, the alien plaintiffs lack constitutional rights with
21 respect to their request to enter the United States, and the petitioner plaintiffs are only entitled, if 22
anything, to review under the “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard. See Fiallo, 430 U.S. 23
24 at 796. In any event, where an equal protection claim is made to an immigration law, at most

25 rational basis review applies. See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976) (considering

26

27 7 The Order also reflects the considered views of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
28 Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, who announced the Order and whose motives have not been impugned.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 21

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 23 of 27

1 whether a law making alienage distinctions was “wholly irrational”); Jimenez–Angeles v.

2 Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir. 2002) (nationality-based classification of noncitizens

3 satisfies equal protection if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.).

4

Under this highly deferential standard, a classification must be upheld so long as “there

5 is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the
6

7 classification.” F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). The Order easily

8 satisfies this relevant standard. It is beyond dispute that “the Executive has the power to draw

9 distinctions among aliens on the basis of nationality” where immigration and entry are at issue.
10 See Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 978 n.30 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc), aff’d on non-constitutional
11 grounds, 472 U.S. 846 (1985); accord e.g., Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 748 (D.C. Cir.
12
13 1979). Here, the President’s determination that nationals from the six countries identified are

14 associated with a heightened risk of terrorism creates a rational basis for the Order. Plaintiffs also

15 allege that the Order violates the Equal Protection Clause because it stems from “substantially 16
motivated by animus toward” Islam. Am. Compl. ¶ 186. But that argument is equivalent to 17 18 plaintiffs’ religious-discrimination claim under the Establishment Clause, and it fails for the same
19 reason.

20

E. The Administrative Procedure and Mandamus Acts Provide no Relief

21

Plaintiffs fail to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under the

22
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act for several reasons. First, 23

24 plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the APA against the Order because the President is not an

25 “agency.” In Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992), the Supreme Court

26 concluded that the Presidency is not an agency as defined in the APA, § 701(b)(1). Courts have

27 interpreted Franklin to prohibit review under the APA of actions by the President when he is
28 exercising discretionary authority. See, e.g., Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Gov’t of Canada, 189 F.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 22

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 24 of 27

1 Supp. 3d 85, 104 (D.D.C. 2016); Sarsour, slip. op. at 16-7. Here, Congress has granted the 2 President authority to suspend entry for any class of aliens if he finds that such entry would be

3 “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Pursuant to that grant of
4 discretionary authority, the President issued the Order and suspended entry of aliens from the six 5
subject countries. The President’s action is thus unreviewable under the APA. See Detroit Int’l 6 7 Bridge, 189 F. Supp. 3d at 104-05.

8

Second, the APA precludes judicial review of any agency action that is “committed to

9 agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 594, 600-01
10 (1988). By its plain terms, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) vests discretion in the President to determine
11 whether “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
12
13 detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for the period “as he shall deem necessary,” and

14 to impose such conditions of entry as “he may deem appropriate.” As a result, there is no

15 discernable standard for judicial review of the President’s determinations. See Haitian Refugee
16 Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 789 F. Supp. 1552, 1575-76 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Thus, even if plaintiffs could
17 18 challenge a presidential finding under the APA, the challenge would necessarily fail.

19

Third, to the extent the alien plaintiffs seek APA review, as explained supra, they have

20 no right of admission or entry into this country.8 Therefore, plaintiffs have no likelihood of
21 success on the merits of a claim under the APA seeking to require the government to admit them 22
into this country. The INA confers upon consular officers the exclusive authority to adjudicate 23
24 visa applications. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1104(a), 1201(a); see also 6 U.S.C. § 236(b), (c). It is well

25 established, however, that “[o]btaining a visa from an American consul has never guaranteed an

26

27 8

Insofar as plaintiffs are reasserting constitutional claims under the APA, their claims

28 necessarily fail for the reasons stated earlier.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 23

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 25 of 27

1 alien’s entry into the United States. A visa merely gives the alien permission to arrive at a port

2 of entry and have an immigration officer independently examine the alien’s eligibility for

3 admission.” Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1201(h)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1154(e). Any suggestion to the contrary by plaintiffs is incorrect. 5
Fourth, the APA affords no relief to the petitioner plaintiffs who claim a constitutionally6 7 protected interest in their family life. APA review for arbitrary and capricious decision-making

8 is incompatible with the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which qualifies as one of the

9 “limitations on judicial” review that overcomes the APA’s presumption of reviewability. See 5
10 U.S.C. § 702(1); Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1160-62 (the APA does not disturb the general
11 rule that no judicial review is available regarding the decision to exclude an alien from the United
12
13 States). To the extent that judicial review of those plaintiffs’ claims it available, it would

14 necessarily be limited to whether the decisions qualify as facially legitimate and bona fide, review

15 under the APA does not apply. Id.; Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770. 16
Finally, plaintiffs’ Mandamus claim fails because they do not identify any required 17 18 discrete agency action. See Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63-64 (2004). To the
19 extent plaintiffs claim that Congress’s delegation through 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) is limited by §

20 1152(a)(1)(A), the latter does not address—and thus does not circumscribe—the President’s

21 authority under § 1182(f). Thus, plaintiffs can find no relief under the APA or the Mandamus

22
Act. 23

24

CONCLUSION

25

Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted.

26 //

27 //
28 //

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 24

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 26 of 27

1 DATED this 14th day of April, 2017. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR]

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section
GISELA A. WESTWATER Assistant Director
EREZ REUVENI Senior Litigation Counsel
/s/ Stacey I. Young STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Bar #499324 Senior Litigation Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-2445 Fax: (202) 305-7000 stacey.young@usdoj.gov

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

25

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 9(4202)F3i0le5-d710714/14/17 Page 27 of 27

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

3 Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of
4 record for the plaintiffs. 5
DATED this 14th day of April, 2017. 6

7

8

/s/ Stacey I. Young

STACEY I. YOUNG, DC Nar #499324

9

Senior Litigation Counsel

10

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

11

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

12

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

13

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 305-7171

14

Fax: (202) 305-7000

stacey.young@usdoj.gov 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] 26

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 94-1 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 1

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

14 States, et al.,

Defendants.

15

16

17

The Court having considered Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and good cause having

18
been shown, it is hereby

19
ORDERED that the case is dismissed with prejudice.
20

21
Dated this ______ day of _________, 2017.
22

_______________________________

23

HON. JAMES L. ROBART

24

United States District Judge

25
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 94-2 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 2
DECLARATION OF CHLOE DYBDAHL
I, Chloe Dybdahl, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
1. I am employed by the United States Department of State as Chief of the Legal Affairs, Advisory Opinions Division of the Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs. In that capacity, I am authorized to search the electronic Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, for replicated records of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas adjudicated at U.S. embassies and consular posts overseas. I am also familiar with immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing procedures.
2. The CCD contains replicated electronic data recording visa applications, visa interviews, and visas issued and refused at U.S. diplomatic and consular posts worldwide.
3. The CCD reflects that the following individuals have not yet applied for a visa. The status of their cases is as follows :
• A.F.A. (related to Juweiya Abdiaziz ALI) is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition that is at the National Visa Center (NVC). The CCD reflects that on March 23, 2017 the case was documentarily qualified for visa application interview scheduling.
• G.E. (related to Reema Khaled DAHMAN) is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition classified by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as a family-based second preference (F2A) with a priority date of October 19, 2015. The April 2017 Visa Bulletin reflects that the priority date for the F2A classification is currently set at June 8, 2015, meaning that visa numbers are available for individuals in the F2A category who have a priority date before June 8, 2015 . As the applicant' s priority date is after June 8, 2015 , there is no visa number currently available. The case will remain at the NVC until a visa number is available.
• Seyedehfatemeh HAMEDANI (related to Jaffer Akhlaq HUSSAIN) is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition classified by USCIS as F2A with a priority date of 14 April2015. The CCD reflects that on February 20,2017 the case was documentarily qualified for visa application interview scheduling.
4. The CCD further reflects that the following individuals applied for immigrant visas and their applications were adjudicated and refused on the dates and grounds noted:
• Faduma Olad ISSA (related to Olad Issa Omar) made a visa application on March 13, 2017 and was refused under INA section 221(g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA, and a Kenyan police certificate. The CCD reflects that on April 11,2017 a police certificate was received. The case remains refused under INA section 221(g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA.

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 94-2 Filed 04/14/17 Page 2 of 2

• F.O.I. (related to Olad Issa Omar) made a visa application on March 13, 2017 and was refused under INA section 221 (g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA, form 1-864 Affidavit of Support, and the petitioner' s 2015 U.S. tax returns. The CCD reflects that on Aprill1 , 2017 a police certificate, form 1-864 Affidavit of Support, and the petitioner' s tax returns were received. The case remains refused under INA section 221(g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA.
• S.O.I. (related to Olad Issa Omar) made a visa application on March 13, 2017 and was refused under INA section 221(g) to provide proof of relationship with the petitioner, such as DNA, and power of attorney such that Faduma Issa may represent him at the interview.
I declare under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

WASHINGTON, D.C. APRIL 13, 2017

Ca·~o02 CHLOE DYBDAHL

2

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

9

10

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-0135JLR

11

Plaintiffs,

v.

12

DONALD TRUMP, et al., 13

Defendants. 14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY

15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

Before the court is Defendants’ motion to stay these proceeding pending

17 resolution of the appeal of the preliminary injunction in Hawaii v. Trump, No. CV

18 17-00050 (D. Haw.). (Mot. (Dkt. # 85)); see also Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589 (9th

19 Cir.). The court has considered Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion

20 (Resp. (Dkt. # 92)), Defendants’ reply (Reply (Dkt. # 93)), the relevant portions of the

21 // 22 //

ORDER - 1

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 11

1 record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised,1 the court GRANTS Defendants’

2 motion.

3

II. BACKGROUND

4

This lawsuit arises out of President Donald J. Trump’s recent issuance of two

5 Executive Orders on immigration: Executive Order No. 13,769 (“EO1”) and Executive

6 Order No. 13,780 (“EO2”).2 On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action

7 complaint challenging Section 3 of EO1. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) On March 6, 2017,

8 President Trump issued EO2, which expressly revoked EO1. See EO2 ¶ 13. Following

9 the President’s issuance of EO2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint incorporating new

10 allegations and claims with respect to EO2. (FAC (Dkt. # 52).) On March 10, 2017,

11 Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against

12 enforcement of certain provisions of EO2, including Section 2(c). (TRO Mot. (Dkt.

13 # 53).) On March 15, 2017, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO.

14 (Min. Entry (Dkt. # 78).)

15

Later that day, in a separate suit, the federal district court in Hawaii enjoined the

16 enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of EO2. See Hawaii v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 (D.

17 Haw.), Dkt. ## 219-20. On March 17, 2017, this court stayed Plaintiffs’ motion for a

18 TRO in part because the federal district court in Hawaii entered a nationwide injunction

19 that provided Plaintiffs with the relief they sought. (3/17/17 Order (Dkt. # 79).) The

20

21

1 No party has requested oral argument, and the court determines that oral argument is not

necessary for its disposition of this motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).

22

2 EO2 expressly revoked EO1 effective March 16, 2017. See EO2 § 13.

ORDER - 2

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 11

1 court also noted that “the Ninth Circuit’s rulings on EO2 in Hawaii v. Trump will likely

2 have significant relevance to—and potentially control—the court’s subsequent ruling

3 here.” (Id. at 10.) Accordingly, the court concluded that “granting a stay of Plaintiffs’

4 TRO motion while the nationwide injunction remains in place . . . pending the outcome

5 of appellate proceedings in [the Hawaii] case would facilitate the orderly course of

6 justice.” (Id.)

7

Defendants now seek a stay—not just of Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO—but of the

8 entire case pending resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. (See Mot.) Plaintiffs

9 oppose a stay. (See Resp.) The court now considers Defendants’ motion.

10

III. ANALYSIS

11

The court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

12 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Landis v.

13 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power applies “especially in cases of

14 extraordinary public moment,” when “a plaintiff may be required to submit to delay not

15 immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or

16 convenience will thereby be promoted.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707. In determining

17 whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the

18 granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d

19 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.

20 1962)). Those interests include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the

21 granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

22 required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the

ORDER - 3

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 11

1 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

2 expected to result from a stay.” Id. Here, the court finds that these factors weigh in favor

3 of granting Defendants’ motion pending resolution of the appeal of the preliminary

4 injunction in Hawaii v. Trump.

5

A. The Orderly Course of Justice

6

The court begins with the last factor—the orderly course of justice and judicial

7 economy. District courts often stay proceedings where resolution of an appeal in another

8 matter is likely to provide guidance to the court in deciding issues before it. See Landis,

9 299 U.S. at 254. When considering a stay pending the resolution of another action, the

10 court need not find that the two cases involve identical issues; a finding that the issues are

11 substantially similar is sufficient to support a stay. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254; see also

12 Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (stating

13 that the court’s authority to stay one proceeding pending the outcome in another “does

14 not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action

15 before the court”). Here, the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump involves many issues that

16 overlap with the present litigation. Indeed, both cases involve constitutional and statutory

17 challenges to Sections 2 of EO2. (See FAC ¶ 98; id. at 45 (Prayer for Relief); Prop. TRO

18 (Dkt. # 53-1) at 2 (seeking an injunction of Section 2 of EO2); Hawaii v. Trump, No. CV

19 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1011673, at *17 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) (issuing a

20 nationwide TRO regarding Sections 2 and 6 of EO2).

21

Defendants argue that waiting for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Hawaii case

22 will likely provide guidance to the court in resolving discovery disputes relevant to

ORDER - 4

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 5 of 11

1 Plaintiffs’ claims. (Mot. at 7-8.) First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are seeking

2 internal government records that Defendants do not believe are relevant because under

3 Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972), Defendants need only demonstrate a

4 “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the Executive’s exclusion of aliens. (Mot.

5 at 6.) Plaintiffs contend that the Ninth Circuit has already resolved the issue of whether

6 internal government documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims when it rejected

7 application of the Mandel standard in Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th

8 Cir. 2017). (Resp. at 3 n.4.) However, in the Hawaii appeal, Defendants argue that the

9 federal district court in Hawaii misread the Ninth Circuit’s stay ruling in Washington.

10 (See Mot. at 1 (citing appellants’ brief).) Plaintiffs disagree with this position, but the

11 salient point for purposes of Defendants’ stay motion is that resolution of the Hawaii

12 appeal is likely to provide guidance to this court on that issue.

13

Further, even if the Ninth Circuit determines in Hawaii that Mandel does not

14 provide the applicable standard and that courts may look beyond the four corners of EO2,

15 the Ninth Circuit’s decision is likely to provide guidance on the scope of that review.

16 Although the Ninth Circuit is not considering discovery issues on appeal, it is likely to

17 decide legal issues that will impact the court’s resolution of the parties’ discovery

18 disputes here by clarifying “the applicable law or relevant landscape of facts that need to

19 be developed.”3 See Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 1050354, at *5

20

21

3 Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants’ motion for a stay is actually a pretext for

Defendants’ categorical opposition to producing any discovery at all. (See Resp. at 5-6.)

22

Defendants take the position that limited, if any, discovery is permitted on Plaintiffs’ claims. (See Mot. at 7 (“Defendants do not believe these [internal government] records are relevant to

ORDER - 5

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 of 11

1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017) (quoting Hawaii v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KJM,

2 2017 WL 536826, at *5 (D. Haw. Feb. 9, 2017)).

3

In addition, Defendants argue that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump

4 will assist the court in other aspects of the litigation as well. (Mot. at 8.) For example,

5 Defendants have moved for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

6 and 12(b)(6) (see MTD (Dkt. # 94)) and Plaintiffs have moved for class certification

7 (MFCC (Dkt. # 58)).4 For the same reasons that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii

8 would be helpful in resolving Plaintiffs’ TRO motion, see Ali v. Trump, No. C17-

9 0135JLR, 2017 WL 1057645, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017), the Ninth Circuit’s

10 decision is also likely to be helpful to the court in resolving Defendants’ motion to

11 dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Further, failing to stay this case

12 could result in “inconsistent rulings” that would need to be “disentangle[d]” later.

13 Washington, 2017 WL 1050354, at *5. For example, if the court determined that

14 discovery of internal government documents is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and

15 proportional to the needs of the case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), but the Ninth Circuit’s

16 decision is inconsistent with that ruling, then the parties would have wasted resources on

17 irrelevant discovery, and the court may have wasted time and resources on irrelevant

18 Plaintiffs’ claims because, under the applicable law, Defendants need only demonstrate a
19 “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the Executive’s exclusion of foreign nationals.” (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770 and Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792-96 (1977)).) Defendants
20 ground their discovery argument in case law, and although the court does not consider the merits of that issue now, the court does not view Defendants’ argument for a stay as a pretext to avoid
21 discovery.
4 The court previously stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification 22 until after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump. (4/5/17 Order (Dkt. # 91) at 3.)

ORDER - 6

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 7 of 11

1 discovery disputes over those materials. In short, the Ninth Circuit’s decision could

2 change “the applicable law or the relevant landscape of facts that need to be developed”

3 in such a way that this court’s intervening rulings would be nullified or need to be

4 reconsidered. See Washington, 2017 WL 1050354, at *5.

5

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the issues in the two cases are not perfectly matched

6 and that the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal in Hawaii will leave various issues

7 unresolved before this court. (See Resp. at 3-4.) Resolution of the Hawaii appeal,

8 however, need not “settle every question of . . . law” to justify a stay. Landis, 299 U.S. at

9 256. It is sufficient that the Hawaii appeal is likely to “settle many” issues and

10 “simplify” others, id., such that a stay will facilitate the orderly course of justice and

11 conserve resources for both the court and the parties. See Fairview Hosp. v. Leavitt,

12 No. 05-1065RWR, 2007 WL 1521233, at *3 n.7 (D.D.C. May 22, 2007) (granting a stay

13 pending the resolution of another matter that would likely settle or simply issues even

14 though it “would not foreclose the necessity of litigation in [the stayed] case”); In re

15 Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., No. 00 CIV 6049, 2001 WL 204212,

16 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2001) (same). The court concludes that a stay, therefore, is most

17 “efficient for [the court’s] own docket and the fairest course for the parties.” Leyva, 593

18 F.2d at 863. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting Defendants’ motion.

19

B. Possible Damage to Plaintiffs if a Stay is Imposed

20

Plaintiffs assert that a stay will delay resolution of discovery disputes that

21 Defendants already concede will arise in any event and necessarily delay the overall

22 resolution of the case. (Resp. at 6-7.) The court is unconvinced that Defendants’

ORDER - 7

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 8 of 11

1 proposed stay will necessarily delay the ultimate outcome of this case. As noted

2 previously, both the present case and the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump involve challenges to

3 Section 2 of EO2. Given this similarity, if the court were to proceed with the parties’

4 potential discovery disputes here, there is a fair possibility—irrespective of how the

5 Ninth Circuit resolves the Hawaii v. Trump appeal—that this court’s rulings would be out

6 of sync with the latest controlling authority once the Ninth Circuit issues its decision. At

7 that point, the parties would likely seek reconsideration, and the court would be faced

8 with deciding the same issues a second time. Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions,

9 denying a stay will not necessarily resolve the litigation more quickly.

10

Plaintiffs also express concern about the potential length of any stay. The court is

11 sensitive to this concern but notes that the Ninth Circuit ordered expedited briefing in the

12 Hawaii appeal and conducted oral argument on May 15, 2017. See Hawaii v. Trump, No.

13 17-15589 (9th Cir.), Dkt. ## 14, 18. Plaintiffs also raise the concern that the stay may

14 continue through an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. (Resp. at 7.) Although

15 that may be accurate, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Hawaii litigation could end

16 prior to reaching the United States Supreme Court. Further, the court will require the

17 parties to submit a joint status report within 10 days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the

18 Hawaii appeal so that the court can reassess the continued appropriateness of the stay at

19 that time. Due to the expedited nature of the appeal before the Ninth Circuit, the court

20 finds that the potential harm to Plaintiffs is insufficient to warrant denying Defendants’

21 motion.

22 //

ORDER - 8

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 9 of 11

1

C. Possible Hardship or Inequity to Defendants if a Stay is Not Imposed

2

Defendants assert that, in the absence of a stay pending further guidance from the

3 Ninth Circuit, they will endure hardship due to “[t]he sheer volume of discovery” that

4 Plaintiffs anticipate serving on Defendants. (Mot. at 9.) Plaintiffs respond that it is well

5 established that “being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a

6 ‘clear case of hardship or inequity.’” (Resp. at 7 (quoting Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112 and

7 Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).)

8

However, neither this lawsuit nor the discovery Plaintiffs seek is typical. The

9 Supreme Court has declared that “the high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief

10 Executive . . . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding,

11 including the timing and scope of discovery, . . . and the Executive’s constitutional

12 responsibilities and status are factors counseling judicial deference and restraint in the

13 conduct of litigation against it.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 385

14 (2004) (alterations and internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery

15 requests are likely to raise multiple discovery disputes. (See JSR at 2-4, 6 (relevance

16 objections), 7 (privilege issues).) In the context of this case, the “high respect” owed to

17 the Executive warrants a stay that will protect Defendants from the burden of

18 resource-intensive discovery while the Ninth Circuit addresses issues that will likely

19 inform the appropriateness, scope, and necessity of that discovery. See id.; see also

20 Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707 (stating that the power to stay proceedings applies “especially in

21 cases of extraordinary public moment”). Thus, the court concludes that this factor

22

ORDER - 9

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 10 of 11

1 weighs heavily in favor of granting Defendants’ motion for a stay pending the outcome of

2 the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.

3

D. Summary of the Factors

4

The court’s evaluation of the relevant factors weighs in favor of staying these

5 proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. Awaiting the Ninth

6 Circuit’s opinion in that case will promote the orderly course of justice and judicial

7 economy. In addition, Defendants have demonstrated they face hardship or inequity in

8 the absence of a stay in light of the breadth of Plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery and the

9 unique nature of this case involving the Chief Executive. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707;

10 Cheney, 542 U.S. at 385. The appeal’s fast track mitigates any harm to Plaintiffs.

11 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has already conducted oral argument. Accordingly, the stay is

12 likely to be of short duration. Further, denying the stay will not necessarily move this

13 litigation along faster because the court may then need to revisit any rulings it makes in

14 the absence of a stay following the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Finally, the court orders the

15 parties to file a joint status report within 10 days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling so that the

16 court may evaluate the continued appropriateness of any stay at that time.

17

IV. CONCLUSION

18

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a

19 stay in these proceedings (Dkt. # 85) pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal

20 in Hawaii v. Trump. Should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted,

21 any party may move to lift the stay. In addition, the court ORDERS the parties to file a

22 joint status report within 10 days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawaii v. Trump so that

ORDER - 10

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/22/17 Page 11 of 11

1 the court may reevaluate the stay at that time. Because this action is now stayed, the

2 court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the pending motions (Dkt. ## 58, 94) from the

3 court’s calendar. After the stay is lifted, the parties may renote these motions for the

4 court’s consideration if appropriate at that time.

5

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2017.

6

7

A

8

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER - 11

 
 Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 98 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 5

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10

JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ AL, et al.,
11

Case No. 2:17-135-JLR

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

JOINT STATUS REPORT

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United

14 States, et al.,

Defendants.

15

16

17

1) INTRODUCTION

18

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status

19
report by July 14, 2017, on the continued appropriateness of the stay in this case. Stipulation and
20
Order to Extend Deadline for Submitting Joint Status Report, ECF No. 97 at 3. The parties
21
submit the following report in which they agree that it is appropriate for a stay to remain in place
22
until the conclusion of Supreme Court proceedings in Trump v. Hawai‘i and Trump v.
23
International Refugee Assistance Project.
24

25
JOINT STATUS REPORT [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 1

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 98 Filed 07/14/17 Page 2 of 5

2) RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1
Plaintiffs filed this suit on January 30, 2017, challenging Executive Order 13769. Compl.,
2
ECF No. 1. On March 10, 2017, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add challenges to
3
4 Executive Order 13780, First Amended Compl., ECF No. 52. Plaintiffs filed their second motion
5 for class certification on the same day. Mot. for Class Cert., ECF No. 58.

6

On March 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i issued a temporary

7 restraining order (TRO) enjoining enforcement nationwide of Sections 2 and 6 of Executive

8 Order 13780. Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017), ECF

9 No. 219. Two weeks after issuing the TRO, the Hawai‘i court converted it into a preliminary
10
injunction. See Hawai‘i, No. 1:17-cv-00050 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017), ECF No. 270.
11
On May 22, 2017, pursuant to the parites’ stipulation, the Court entered an order staying
12
the proceedings, ECF No. 95, pending resolution of the appeal in Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 17-
13
15589 (9th Cir.). The Court further ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 10 days
14
of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawai‘i so that the Court could evaluate the continued
15
16 appropriateness of a stay at that time.

17

The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on June 12, 2017, affirming in part and vacating in

18 part the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Sections 2 and 6

19 of the Executive Order. Hawai‘i v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The Ninth

20 Circuit overturned certain portions of the injunction involving internal-review procedures, but it

21 upheld the remainder based on statutory grounds. On May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit also

22 issued a decision in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir.

23
2017) (en banc), affirming a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the
24
Executive Order on Establishment Clause grounds.
25

JOINT STATUS REPORT [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 2

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 98 Filed 07/14/17 Page 3 of 5

The Defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, applied for a stay
1
pending appeal, and requested that the Hawai‘i case be consolidated with Trump v. International
2
3 Refugee Assistance Project, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc). To permit the parties to be
4 informed by the Supreme Court’s decisions on the certiorari petitions and stay applications, the

5 parties here agreed to an extension of time to submit their joint status report, extending the

6 deadline until July 14, 2017.

7

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, granted the stay application in

8 part, and consolidated Trump v. Hawai‘i and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project.

9
Nos. 16-1436 (16A1190), 16-1540 (16A1191), 2017 WL 2722580 (U.S. June 26, 2017). The
10
cases will be heard during the first session October Term 2017. Id. at *5.
11
3) STATUS REPORT
12
The parties agree that it is appropriate for a stay to remain in place until the conclusion of
13
Supreme Court proceedings in Hawai‘i and International Refugee Assistance Project. The
14
parties further agree that, should circumstances change such that lifting the stay is warranted, any
15
16 party may move to lift the stay.

17 18
19 //

DATED this 14th day of July, 2017.

20 //

21 //
22 //
23 //
24
//
25
//
JOINT STATUS REPORT [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 3

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 98 Filed 07/14/17 Page 4 of 5

s/Matt Adams, WSBA No. 28287 1 s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, WSBA No.

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General

46987 2 s/Maria Lucia Chavez, WSBA No. 43826

Civil Division

3
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director

4 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section

5 (206) 957-8611

(206) 587-4025 (fax)

GISELA A. WESTWATER

6

Assistant Director

s/Trina Realmuto, admitted pro hac vice 7 s/Kristin Macleod-Ball, admitted pro hac

s/ Stacey I. Young

vice
8

STACEY I. YOUNG Senior Litigation Counsel

9 National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section

10 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108

United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

11 (617) 227-9727

Washington, DC 20044

(617) 227-5495 (fax)

Telephone: (202) 305-7171

12

Facsimile: (202) 305-7000

s/Mary Kenney, admitted pro hac vice

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

13 s/Aaron Reichlin-Melnick , admitted pro hac

vice 14 s/Melissa Crow, admitted pro hac vice

15 American Immigration Council 16 1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20005 17 (202) 507-7512
(202) 742-5619 (fax)
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19

Attorneys for Defendants

20

21

22

23

24

25
JOINT STATUS REPORT [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 4

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR Document 98 Filed 07/14/17 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
2
3 Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of 4 record for the Plaintiffs.

5

DATED this 14th day of July, 2017.

6

7

/s/ Stacey I. Young

Stacey I. Young, DC Nar #499324

8

United States Department of Justice

9

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

10

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

11

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 305-7171

12

Fax: (202) 305-7000

stacey.young@usdoj.gov

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
JOINT STATUS REPORT [Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR] - 5

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 305-7171

 
 9/30/2018
CM/ECF ?
Query Reports Utilities Logout

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
CLOSED,STAYED

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17-cv-00135-JLR

Ali et al v. Trump et al Assigned to: Judge James L. Robart Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Movant Mikki the Mime TERMINATED: 03/30/2017
Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali

Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Date Terminated: 09/21/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 460 Deportation Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Mikki the Mime P01102062 C/O JOSEPH A CAMP JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL PO BOX 16700 GOLDEN, CO 80402 PRO SE
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1441 G STREET NW, SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-507-505 Email: AReichlinMelnick@immcouncil.org TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA) 615 2ND AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-957-8646 Email: glenda@nwirp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

1/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Kristin Macleod-Ball AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 100 SUMMER ST. 23RD FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 857-305-3722 Email: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kenney AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G STREET NW, SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-507-7512 Email: mkenney@immcouncil.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matt Adams NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA) 615 2ND AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-957-8611 Email: matt@nwirp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 G STREET NW STE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-507-7523 Email: mcrow@immcouncil.org TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Trina Realmuto AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 100 SUMMER ST. 23RD FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 857-305-3600 Email: trealmuto@immcouncil.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

Maria Lucia Chavez NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
2/27

9/30/2018
Plaintiff A. F. A. a minor

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
PROJECT (SEA) 615 2ND AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-957-8633 Email: malou@nwirp.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Matt Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

3/27

9/30/2018
Reema Khaled Dahman

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Matt Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Plaintiff
G. E. a minor

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

4/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Matt Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Plaintiff
Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kenney

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

5/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matt Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
E. A. a minor; on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Trina Realmuto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Matt Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

6/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain

Trina Realmuto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matt Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

7/27

9/30/2018
Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Olad Issa Omar

Matt Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

8/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Faduma Olad Issa

Matt Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Kenney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

9/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff F. O. I.

Matt Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

Trina Realmuto

10/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff S. O. I.

Matt Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin Macleod-Ball (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Melissa Crow (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

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

Maria Lucia Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

Matt Adams

11/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Donald Trump President of the United States of America

represented by Chad A. Readler US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202-514-7830 Email: chad.a.readler@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (BOX 868) PO BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202-598-2445 Email: joseph.a.darrow@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant U.S. Department of State

Stacey I Young US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (BOX 868) PO BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202-305-7171 Email: stacey.young@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tom Shannon Acting Secretary of State TERMINATED: 03/13/2017

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

Joseph A. Darrow

12/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Kelly Secretary of Homeland Security

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lori Scialabba Acting Director of USCIS

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address)

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

13/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Dempsey Acting Director of National Intelligence

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant US Customs and Border Protection

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kevin K. McAleenan Acting Commissioner of CBP

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jefferson B Sessions Attorney General of the United States

represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address)

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

14/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rex W Tillerson Secretary of State

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chad A. Readler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Washington State Labor Council

Stacey I Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dmitri Iglitzin SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP 18 W MERCER ST STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98119-3971 206-285-2828 Fax: FAX 378-4132 Email: Iglitzin@workerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lee Robbins SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP 18 W MERCER ST STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98119-3971 206-285-2828 Email: robbins@workerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

Kathleen Phair Barnard SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP 18 W MERCER ST STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98119-3971 206-285-2828 Fax: 206-378-4132 Email: barnard@workerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
15/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Date Filed

# Docket Text

01/30/2017

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-4750904), filed by Reema Khaled Dahman, A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, G. E.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executive Order, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Adams, Matt) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/31/2017

Judge James L. Robart added. (DJ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

02/02/2017

2 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re 1 Complaint, by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/02/2017

3 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement) Noting Date 2/24/2017, (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/02/2017

4 DECLARATION of Matt Adams filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 3 MOTION to Certify Class (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/02/2017

5 DECLARATION of Mary Kenney filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 3 MOTION to Certify Class (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/02/2017

6 DECLARATION of Trina Realmuto filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 3 MOTION to Certify Class (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/02/2017

7 DECLARATION of Melissa Crow filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 3 MOTION to Certify Class (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/03/2017

8 Summonses electronically issued as to defendant(s) Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons) (CDA) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/06/2017

9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E.. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/3/2017, (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/06/2017

10 DECLARATION of Matt Adams filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/06/2017

11 DECLARATION of Abdelraziq ADAM filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/06/2017 12 DECLARATION of Elias Mohamud ABDI filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

16/27

9/30/2018
02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
13 DECLARATION of Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed ALI filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
14 DECLARATION of Reema Khaled DAHMAN filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
15 DECLARATION of Carol E. EDWARD filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
16 DECLARATION of Hesam Moazzami FARAHANI filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
17 DECLARATION of Jaffer A. HUSSAIN filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
18 DECLARATION of Nikoo NIKNEJAD filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
19 DECLARATION of Mohamed Barre OMAR filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
20 DECLARATION of Azin SAFARI filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
21 DECLARATION of Gregory Howard SISKIND filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
22 DECLARATION of Sohail SOBHANI filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
23 DECLARATION of Ghassan TAHHAN filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

17/27

9/30/2018
02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/08/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
24 DECLARATION of Nita Nicole UPADHYE filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
25 DECLARATION of Deniz UYSAL-FERRE filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
26 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Trina Realmuto FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4760697 (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
27 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Kristin Macleod-Ball FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09814760708 (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
28 ORDER re 26 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Trina Realmuto for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman and G. E., by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.

02/08/2017

NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
29 ORDER re 27 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Kristin Macleod-Ball for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, and for G. E., by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.

NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/09/2017

30 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing of Summons and Complaint to various on 2/3/2017, filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E.. (Chavez, Maria) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/09/2017

31 MOTION renote and modify the briefing schedule re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order , filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/9/2017, (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/09/2017

32 DECLARATION of Matt Adams filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. re 31 MOTION renote and modify the briefing schedule re 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/10/2017

33 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Stacey I Young on behalf of Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba,

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

18/27

9/30/2018
02/14/2017 02/16/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/21/2017 02/23/2017
02/27/2017 02/28/2017 02/28/2017 02/28/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
34 ORDER by Judge James L. Robart denying Plaintiffs' 31 Motion to synchronize briefing schedule. Parties ordered to proceed with briefing Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Civil Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3). (PM) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
35 MOTION to Stay Briefing Deadlines, filed by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/24/2017, (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
36 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 35 MOTION to Stay Briefing Deadlines ; by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
37 NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: 3 MOTION to Certify Class . Filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E.. Noting Date 3/10/2017, (Chavez, Maria) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
38 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT by Judge James L. Robart. Joint Status Report due by 3/28/2017, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 3/7/2017, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 3/21/2017. (AD) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
39 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/3/2017, (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
40 RESPONSE, by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, to 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
41 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Mary Kenney FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4785647 (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
42 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Melissa Crow FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4785658 (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
43 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Aaron Reichlin-Melnick FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali,

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

19/27

9/30/2018
02/28/2017
02/28/2017
02/28/2017
02/28/2017 03/02/2017 03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/07/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E. (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09814785666 (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
44 ORDER re 41 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Mary Kenney for defendants A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, and G. E., by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(CDA) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
45 ORDER re 42 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Melissa Crow for A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman,and G. E., by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(CDA) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
46 ORDER re 43 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick for A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, and G. E., by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(CDA) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
47 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., to 39 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
48 REPLY, filed by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, TO RESPONSE to 39 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
49 ORDER by Judge James L. Robart granting Defendants' 39 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' 3 MOTION for Class Certification. Response due 3/20/2017; Reply due 3/24/2017. (PM) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
50 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., TO RESPONSE to 9 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
51 NOTICE ; filed by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Young, Stacey) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

20/27

9/30/2018
03/10/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
52 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by Reema Khaled Dahman, A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, G. E..(Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief, filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/10/2017, (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

54 Second DECLARATION of Matt Adams filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

55 DECLARATION of Olad Issa Omar filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

56 DECLARATION of Mozhdeh Oskouian filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

57 DECLARATION of Joanna Fischer filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

58 Second MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/7/2017, (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

59 MINUTE ORDER scheduling a telephone conference for 3/13/2017 at 09:00 AM, PDT, in Courtroom 14106 before Judge James L. Robart regarding a schedule for Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,(Dkt. 53 ) and a hearing on the motion. Authorized by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

60 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Movant Mikki the Mime. (filing pro se) (swt) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

61 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re 52 Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

62 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Chad A. Readler on behalf of Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan,

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

21/27

9/30/2018
03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017
03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017
03/14/2017 03/14/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Readler, Chad) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
Party Rex W Tillerson added as a defendant and Party Tom Shannon (Acting Secretary of State) terminated per 52 Amended Complaint. (PM) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
63 Summons Issued electronically as to defendant Customs and Border Protection, (Attachments: # 1 Summons - Jeff B. Sessions) (PM) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
64 NOTICE ; filed by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Readler, Chad) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
65 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge James L. Robart - Dep Clerk: Ashleigh Drecktrah; Pla Counsel: Matt Adams, Mary Kenney, Glenda Aldana Madrid, Trina Realmuto; Def Counsel: Stacey Young, Chad Readler; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Telephone Conference held on 3/13/2017. The court hears from counsel re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 9 ). Defendants shall file their brief in response to Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO by 4:30 p.m. PDT on Tuesday, March 14, 2017. Their response shall not exceed 40 pages. Plaintiffs and Defendants are directed to submit briefs of no more than five (5) pages on the availability of injunctive relief on a non-certified class, also by 4:30 p.m. PDT on Tuesday, March 14, 2017. Plaintiffs' first Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. # 3 ) is stricken from the docket. (AD) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Maria Lucia Chavez on behalf of Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar. (Chavez, Maria) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
67 PRAECIPE re 56 Declaration, by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar (Attachments: # 1 Errata Declaration of Mozhdeh Oskouian in Support of Plaintiffs)(Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
68 DECLARATION of Kristin Macleod-Ball filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-Z, # 2 Exhibits AA-RR) (Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
69 MINUTE ENTRY at the direction of chambers: The Court hereby orders the Clerk make all the documents in this case, unless sealed by a motion and order, available for remote public access. (AD) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
70 RESPONSIVE BRIEF re 65 Telephone Conference,,, by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

22/27

9/30/2018
03/14/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
71 RESPONSE, by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, to 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Young, Stacey) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

72 MEMORANDUM filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

Set/Reset Hearings: In-court hearing re: Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 53 ) is set for Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14106 before Judge James L. Robart. Counsel may appear telephonically. (AD) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017

73 NOTIFICATION REGARDING PROPOSED VIDEO RECORDING. All parties have consented to the video recording of the in-court hearing re: Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 53 ) on 3/15/2017 at 2:00 p.m. Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge, the proceeding will be video recorded as part of the CAMERAS Pilot Project. (AD) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017

74 DECLARATION of Maria Lucia Chavez filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar re 53 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017

75 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief re TRO, filed by Amicus Washington State Labor Council. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit B Joint Declaration) Noting Date 3/15/2017, (Iglitzin, Dmitri) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017

76 DECLARATION of Jeff Johnson In Support of Motion to File Amicus Brief re Motion for TRO re 75 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief re TRO by Amicus Washington State Labor Council (Iglitzin, Dmitri) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017

77 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 75 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief re TRO (Iglitzin, Dmitri) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017

78 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge James L. Robart - Dep Clerk: Ashleigh Drecktrah; Pla Counsel: Matt Adams, Glenda Aldana Madrid, Maria Lucia Chavez; appearing by phone: Kristin Macleod-Ball, Mary Kenney, Melissa Crow, Trina Realmuto, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick; Def Counsel: Chad Readler, Stacey Young; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Motion Hearing held on 3/15/2017 The court hears from counsel re: Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 53 ). The court takes the matter under advisement; written order to follow. (AD) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/17/2017

79 ORDER staying Plaintiffs' 53 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and finding as moot Plaintiffs' original 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction related to EO1. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/20/2017

80 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re 52 Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani,

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

23/27

9/30/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Aldana Madrid, Glenda) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/21/2017

81 Summons issued electronically as to defendant Kevin K. McAleenan. (PM) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/28/2017

82 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 5. Filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar.(Adams, Matt) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/30/2017

83 ORDER denying Mikki the Mime's 60 Motion to Intervene. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future filings by Ms. Mime on the court's docket for this case, unless the filing is a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart.(PM) cc: Mikki the Mime and Joseph A. Camp via the U.S. Mail (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/30/2017

84 ORDER granting the Washington State Labor Council's 75 Motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs' motion for TRO. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/30/2017

85 MOTION to Stay , filed by Defendants Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/14/2017, (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/30/2017

86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and Second Motion for Class Certification, filed by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/7/2017, (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/30/2017

87 ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF AMICUS BRIEFS by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/31/2017

88 MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants a short-term extension of time for their responses to Plaintiffs' amended complaint 52 and second motion for class certification 58 through Wednesday, April 5, 2017. The court further schedules a telephone conference for 10:00 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), on April 5, 2017, at which time the court will consider Defendants' motion to extend 86 the two deadlines at issue to ten (10) days after the court resolves Defendants' pending motion to stay 85 . Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion for an extension of time is due by 12:00 noon, PDT, on 4/4/2017. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

04/04/2017

89 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar, to 86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and Second Motion for Class Certification. (Chavez, Maria) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/05/2017

90 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge James L. Robart - Dep Clerk: Ashleigh Drecktrah; Pla Counsel: Matt Adams, Glenda Aldana Madrid, Malou Chavez; Def Counsel: Stacey Young (appearing by phone); CR: Andrea Ramirez; Telephone Conference held on 4/5/2017 re: Defendants' Opposed Motion for an Extension of

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

24/27

9/30/2018
04/05/2017 04/10/2017 04/14/2017
04/14/2017
05/22/2017
06/22/2017
06/23/2017 07/14/2017 09/21/2017 09/21/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Second Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. # 86 ). The court hears argument from counsel. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Written order to follow. (AD) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
91 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 86 motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and second motion for class certification. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
92 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar, to 85 MOTION to Stay . (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
93 REPLY, filed by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Amicus Washington State Labor Council, TO RESPONSE to 85 MOTION to Stay (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
94 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) Noting Date 5/26/2017, (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
95 ORDER granting 85 Motion to stay proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. In addition, the court ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within 10 days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii v. Trump so that the court may reevaluate the stay at that time. Because this action is now stayed, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove the pending motions (Dkt. ## 58 , 94 ) from the court's calendar. After the stay is lifted, the parties may renote these motions for the court's consideration if appropriate at that time. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
96 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report, filed by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Movant Mikki the Mime, Amicus Washington State Labor Council. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/22/2017, (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
97 ORDER granting 96 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time; Joint Status Report due by 7/14/2017, signed by Judge James L. Robart.(RS) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
98 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
99 NOTICE of Change of Address/Change of Name of Attorney Kristin Macleod-Ball. Filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar. (Macleod-Ball, Kristin) Modified Address and Firm Association on 9/21/2017 (DS). (Entered: 09/21/2017)
100 NOTICE of Change of Address/Change of Name of Attorney Trina Realmuto. Filed by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

25/27

9/30/2018
10/10/2017
10/31/2017
11/01/2017
01/18/2018
01/23/2018 01/23/2018 02/05/2018 07/13/2018 07/19/2018 09/17/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Issa, Olad Issa Omar. (Realmuto, Trina) Modified address on 9/21/2017 (DS). (Entered: 09/21/2017)
101 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Joseph A. Darrow on behalf of Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
102 Joint Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Stay and Status Report, filed by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Tom Shannon, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Noting Date 11/14/2017, (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
103 ORDER granting parties' 102 Stipulated Motion to extend the stay of proceedings. The court ORDERS the stay to remain in effect until such time as the Ninth Circuit rules on the appeal of the preliminary injunction in Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-17168 (9th Cir.). The court further ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within seven (7) days of such a ruling by the Ninth Circuit or any other event that warrants the court's reconsideration of the stay. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (TH) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
104 STATUS REPORT and Stipulation to Extend Stay by Defendants Customs and Border Protection, Michael Dempsey, John Kelly, Kevin K. McAleenan, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lori Scialabba, Jefferson B. Sessions, Rex W Tillerson, Donald Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Young, Stacey) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
105 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 104 Status Report, Stipulated Motion for Extension of Stay of Proceedings (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
106 ORDER granting 104 Stipulated Motion/Status Report for extension of stay of proceedings. Parties to file a joint status report within 10 days of the Supreme Court's resolution of the matter in Trump v. Hawaii. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
107 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Melissa Crow for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar. (Crow, Melissa) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
108 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick for Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar. (Reichlin-Melnick, Aaron) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
109 STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs A. F. A., Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
110 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of case by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E.,

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

26/27

9/30/2018
09/20/2018 09/21/2018

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
111 AMENDED NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of case by Plaintiffs A. F. A., E. A., Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, Reema Khaled Dahman, G. E., Seyedehfatemeh Hamedani, Jaffer Akhlaq Hussain, F. O. I., S. O. I., Faduma Olad Issa, Olad Issa Omar (Adams, Matt) Modified on 9/21/2018 to indicate this is an amended notice (PM). (Entered: 09/20/2018)
***Civil Case Terminated per Plaintiffs' 111 Amended Unopposed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice. (PM) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

09/30/2018 13:30:18

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

25

Cost:

2:17-cv00135-JLR
2.50

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/WAWD%20CM_ECF%20Version%206.1.html

27/27