HABEAS
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN

J.E.C.M. et al v. Lloyd et al Assigned to: District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

Date Filed: 07/19/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff Blanca Jeronimo Sis

represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin Legal Aid Justice Center (Falls Church) 6066 Leesburg Pike Suite 520 Falls Chruch, VA 22041 703-720-5606 Email: becky@justice4all.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg Simon Sandoval Moshenburg Legal Aid Justice Center 6066 Leesburg Pike Suite 520 Fall Church, VA 22041 703-778-3450 Fax: 703-778-3454 Email: simon@justice4all.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angela A. Ciolfi Legal Aid Justice Center (Charlottesville) 1000 Preston Avenue Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 977-0553

Plaintiff Sandra Alvarado

Fax: (434) 977-0558 Email: angela@justice4all.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20005 202-772-8747 Fax: 202-371-2540 Email: jcrozendaal@sternekessler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center 1000 Preston Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903 470-606-9307 Email: mary.bauer@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20005 202-371-2600 Fax: 202-371-2540 Email: sbezos@sternekessler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW Washington, DC 20005 202-371-2600 Fax: 202-371-2540 Email: dglenn@sternekessler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner Legal Aid Justice Center (Falls Church) 6066 Leesburg Pike Suite 520 Falls Chruch, VA 22041 703-778-3450 Fax: 703-778-3454 Email: cwarner@justice4all.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan Legal Aid Justice Center (Falls Church) 6066 Leesburg Pike Suite 520 Falls Chruch, VA 22041 703-778-3450 Fax: 703-778-3454 Email: kristin@justice4all.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos

Plaintiff Cinthia Velasquez Trail

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophia Leticia Gregg Legal Aid Justice Center (Charlottesville) 1000 Preston Avenue Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-529-1823 Email: sophia@justice4all.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer

Petitioner
J.E.C.M. a minor, by and through his next friend Jose Jimenez Saravia

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophia Leticia Gregg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Jose Jiminez Saravia

Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophia Leticia Gregg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Simon Yehuda Sandoval-

Petitioner Byron Gustavo Sis Sis

Moshenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophia Leticia Gregg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos

Petitioner
R.A.I. a minor, by and through her next friend, Sandra Alvarado, and Sandra Alvarado

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophia Leticia Gregg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos (See above for address)

Petitioner
K.T.M. a minor, by a through his next friend Cinthia Velasquez Trail and Cinthia Velasquez Trail

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sophia Leticia Gregg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Simon Yehuda SandovalMoshenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela A. Ciolfi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin George Glenn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Granville Clayton Warner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Rozendaal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Fisher Donovan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sophia Leticia Gregg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Cindy Huang Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement

V. Respondent Scott Lloyd Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement TERMINATED: 12/26/2018
Respondent Steven Wagner Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

represented by Catherine M. Yang US Attorney's Office (AlexandriaNA) 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 NA 703-299-3799 Email: catherine.yang@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery A. Hall US Attorney's Office (Alexandria) 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 **NA** 703-299-3700 Email: jeffrey.a.hall@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Tyler Lucier US Attorney Office (Richmond) SunTrust Building 919 East Main Street Suite 1900 Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 819-5506

Respondent Alex Azar Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Respondent Natasha David Federal Field Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement
Respondent Johnitha McNair Executive Director, Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center Respondent Timothy Smith Executive Director, Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center TERMINATED: 07/22/2019 Respondent Gary L. Jones Chief Executive Officer, Youth For Tomorrow

Fax: (804) 771-2316 Email: jonathan.lucier@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery A. Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Tyler Lucier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery A. Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Tyler Lucier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Flores Gammon & Grange PC 8280 Greensboro Dr Suite 140

Respondent Jonathan Hayes Acting Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement TERMINATED: 06/03/2021
Respondent Timothy Showalter

McLean, VA 22102-3807 703-761-5000 Fax: 703-761-5023 Email: jrf@gg-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang US Attorney's Office (AlexandriaNA) 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 **NA** 703-299-3799 Email: catherine.yang@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery A. Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Tyler Lucier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine M. Yang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Botkins Litten & Sipe, LLC 410 Neff Avenue Harrisonburg, VA 22801 540-434-5353 Fax: 540-437-3067 Email: jason.botkins@littensipe.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Tyler Lucier

Amicus Human Trafficking Legal Center

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Sean Everard Litten & Sipe, LLC 410 Neff Avenue Harrisonburg, VA 22801 540-434-5353 Fax: 540-437-3077 Email: josh.everard@littensipe.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Perry Andrew Lange Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (DC) 1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 202-663-6000 Fax: 202-663-6363 Email: perry.lange@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador Manuel Bezos (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/20/2018
07/20/2018 07/20/2018

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 0422-6187464.), filed by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7)(dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Simon Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg on behalf of J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER of Service (2241) upon respondents. Given J.E.C.M.'s young age and the length of time he has spent in custody, it is hereby ORDERED that respondents SHOW CAUSE by Friday, July 27, 2018 why the habeas corpus petition should not be granted; and it is further ORDERED that any reply to respondents' brief be filed by Tuesday, July 31, 2018; and it is further ORDERED that the parties appear for a hearing on the habeas corpus petition at 9:30 a.m.

07/20/2018 07/21/2018
07/21/2018 07/21/2018 07/21/2018 07/23/2018 07/23/2018 07/23/2018 07/24/2018 07/24/2018
07/24/2018

on Thursday, August 2, 2018. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/20/2018. (c/s to USAO)(dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
Set Deadlines as to Hearing set for 8/2/2018 at 09:30 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (see order 3 ) (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
4 AMENDED Petition and Class Action Complaint against Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Steven Wagner, filed by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SWK Discharge Notification, # 2 Exhibit SCH Discharge Notification, # 3 Exhibit ORR Notification to ICE CC, # 4 Exhibit Memorandum of Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Sponsor Reunification Packet, # 6 Exhibit ORR Policy Guide, # 7 Exhibit ORR Record of Posting and Revision Dates)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/21/2018)
5 MOTION to Certify Class by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/21/2018)
6 Memorandum in Support re 5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/21/2018)
7 Notice of Hearing Date set for August 2, 2018 re 5 MOTION to Certify Class (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/21/2018)
Set Deadline as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2018 at 09:30 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (jlan) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by John Christopher Rozendaal on behalf of J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia (Rozendaal, John) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Salvador Manuel Bezos on behalf of J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
10 Notice of Hearing Date re 5 MOTION to Certify Class (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
11 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Petitioner's Habeas Petition by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
12 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File; and it is further ORDERED that Respondents show cause by Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. why the habeas petition should not be granted, and that any reply to Respondents' brief be filed by Wednesday, August 1, 2018. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/24/2018. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

07/25/2018 07/27/2018 07/30/2018
07/30/2018 07/31/2018 08/03/2018 08/03/2018
08/03/2018 08/10/2018 08/16/2018

Reset Deadlines as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class . Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (klau, ) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
13 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Steven Wagner (Joint) (Barghaan, Dennis) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
14 ORDERED that the briefing schedule related to the Court's Order to Show Cause 3 be and is VACATED; that the hearing on the habeas corpus petition currently scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, 8/2/2018 be and is CANCELED; that petitioners immediately advise the Court what, if any issues remain to be resolved in the current lawsuit and, specifically, whether the current lawsuit is moot in light of the apparent resolution of all issues related to the only named petitioners. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 7/30/2018. (rban, ) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
15 NOTICE by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia re 14 Order,, Notice Regarding Non-Mootness (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
16 Proposed Summons re 4 Amended Petition,, by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
17 Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
18 ORDER granting in part 17 Motion for Briefing Schedule. ORDERED that respondents file their opposition to petitioner's Motion for Class Certification on or before 8/10/2018; that petitioners file their reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification on or before 8/20/2018; that the hearing on petitioners' Motion for Class Certification 5 be and is CONTINUED from 8/31/2018 until 9/7/2018 at 10 a.m. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 8/3/2018. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class . Responses due by 8/10/2018 Replies due by 8/20/2018. Motion Hearing set for 9/7/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
19 Memorandum in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 DEX A)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
20 ORDER - The parties having agreed upon the filing of a Second Amended Complaint and a briefing schedule in this matter, and for good cause shown, the court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. By consent of all parties, Petitioners may file a Second Amended Complaint on August 16,

08/16/2018
08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/17/2018 08/17/2018 08/17/2018 08/17/2018 08/17/2018
08/17/2018
08/20/2018 09/12/2018

2018. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 08/16/2018. (see order for full details)(dvanm, ) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
21 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus against Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Steven Wagner, filed by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
22 MOTION to Seal by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
23 Memorandum in Support re 22 MOTION to Seal filed by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
24 Waiver of re 22 MOTION to Seal Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by J.E.C.M., Jose Jiminez Saravia (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
Notice of Correction re 22 MOTION to Seal . The filing user has been notified to file the Local Civil Rule 5(B) Notice. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
25 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B) by B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia re 22 MOTION to Seal (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by John Christopher Rozendaal on behalf of B.G.S.S., K.T.M., R.A.I. (Rozendaal, John) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Salvador Manuel Bezos on behalf of B.G.S.S., K.T.M., R.A.I. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
28 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class by B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Blanca Jeronimo Sis, Sandra Alvarado, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
29 Memorandum in Support re 28 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
30 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 08/20/2018. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
31 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd,

09/12/2018
09/12/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018
09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/24/2018 10/10/2018

Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
32 ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File. It is furtherORDERED that Defendants shall file any dispositive motion with respect to the Second Amended Complaint on or before September 21, 2018; Plaintiffs may file an opposition to Defendants' motion on or before October 12, 2018; Defendants may file any reply memorandum on or before October 19, 2018; and argument on Defendants' motion shall be held on October 26,2018. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 09/12/2018. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
Set Deadlines as to Motion Hearing set for 10/26/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (see Order 32 for details) (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
33 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
34 ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' consent motion for an enlargement of the page limit for their response to the Second Amended Complaint, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' consent motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants may file an opening brief of up to forty (40) pages in response to the Second Amended Complaint.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 9/21/18. (yguy) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
35 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
37 Memorandum in Support re 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 DEX A, # 2 DEX B, # 3 DEX C)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
Notice of Correction re 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
38 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez

10/10/2018 10/11/2018 10/12/2018
10/12/2018 10/12/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/18/2018

Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
39 Waiver of re 38 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
40 ORDER granting 38 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs' may file a response brief of up to forty-one (41) pages in response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/11/2018. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
41 Memorandum in Opposition re 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Madrid - Locking Up the Children, # 2 Exhibit Fig. 1, # 3 Exhibit Jeronimo Sis Decl., # 4 Exhibit JECM Sponsor Information_Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Dickerson - Migrant Children Moved)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
42 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGAL CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Lange, Perry) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
43 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Andrew Brown Cherry and Certification of Local Counsel Perry Lange Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-6314496. by HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGAL CENTER. (Lange, Perry) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
44 ORDER granting 42 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss ; directing that the Clerk is to accept the proposed amicus brief for filing. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/15/2018. (aott) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
45 Brief of Amicus Curiae Human Trafficking Legal Center in Opposition to 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (aott) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
46 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/15/2018. (rban, ) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
47 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/18/2018 10/18/2018
10/18/2018 10/19/2018
10/19/2018 10/22/2018
10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/26/2018

48 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is hereby ORDERED that defendants may file their reply brief by 5:00 p.m. on October 22, 2018. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/18/2018. (dest, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
49 MOTION for Reconsideration re 48 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
50 Waiver of re 49 MOTION for Reconsideration re 48 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition re 49 MOTION for Reconsideration re 48 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
52 ORDER denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/19/2018. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
53 REPLY to Response to Motion re 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Gary L. Jones, Scott Lloyd, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
54 NOTICE of Appearance by Angela A. Ciolfi on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Ciolfi, Angela) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
55 NOTICE of Appearance by John Christopher Rozendaal on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, Blanca Jeronimo Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Rozendaal, John) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
56 NOTICE of Appearance by Salvador Manuel Bezos on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, Blanca Jeronimo Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 10/25/2018)
Notice of Correction re 54 Notice of Appearance. The filing user has been notified that the Notice of Appearance is an incorrectly saved PDF fillable form and has been removed. The filing user was directed to refile the document. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018 10/26/2018 11/10/2018
11/15/2018 11/15/2018 11/27/2018

57 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema:Motion Hearing held on 10/26/2018. Appearances of counsel. Defts' 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction are argued and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter A. Thomson.)(yguy) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by Angela A. Ciolfi on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Ciolfi, Angela) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
59 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 10/26/2018, before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, Court Reporter Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703-299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/10/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/10/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/8/2019.(thomson, anneliese) (Entered: 11/10/2018)
60 MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated above, defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 35] will be GRANTED in part as to the individual claims of plaintiffs J.E.C.M., Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail and as to Count II and DENIED in all other respects by an appropriate Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/15/18. (yguy) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
61 ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the individual claims of plaintiffs J.E.C.M., Jimenez Saravia, R. A.L, Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail are DISMISSED AS MOOT, and it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. Nos. 35 and 36] be and is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Count II (substantive due process) and DENIED in all other respects. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/15/18. (yguy) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
62 ORDERED that the parties meet and confer to develop a briefing schedule on the class certification issue. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/27/2018. (jlan) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/29/2018 12/03/2018
12/03/2018 12/10/2018 12/10/2018
12/10/2018 12/21/2018 01/03/2019 01/03/2019

63 ANSWER to Complaint (Second Amended Complaint) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Steven Wagner.(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
64 ORDER - The parties having agreed on a briefing schedule on the class certification issue, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Federal Defendants may file an opposition to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class Certification 28 on or before December 14, 2018. 2. Plaintiffs may file a consolidated reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification 5 and Supplemental Motion for Class Certification on or before December 21, 2018. 3. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motions for class certification shall be set for January 4, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 12/03/2018. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
Set Deadlines as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class , 28 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class . Motion Hearing set for 1/4/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
65 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 64 Order,, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings Consent Motion to Alter Briefing Schedule by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
66 Waiver of re 65 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 64 Order,, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings Consent Motion to Alter Briefing Schedule Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
67 ORDER granting 65 Consent Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 12/10/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
68 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Scott Lloyd, Steven Wagner of Party Substitution (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
69 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 67 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Motion to Alter Briefing Schedule by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
70 Waiver of re 69 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 67 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Motion to Alter Briefing Schedule Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M.,

01/03/2019 01/18/2019
01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019
01/18/2019 01/22/2019

Blanca Jeronimo Sis, R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
71 ORDER granting 69 Motion to Alter Briefing Schedule and for good cause shown, the Court hereby orders as follows:1. The Consent Order dated December 10, 2018 67 is hereby VACATED.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 01/03/2019. (see Order for further details) (dvanm, ) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
72 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exh 1 to Third Am. Compl., # 3 Exhibit Exh 2 to Third Am. Compl., # 4 Exhibit Exh 3 to Third Am. Compl., # 5 Exhibit Exh 4 to Third Am. Compl., # 6 Exhibit Exh 5 to Third Am. Compl., # 7 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
73 Notice of Hearing Date set for Feb. 15, 2019, 10:00am re 72 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
74 Second MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Motion for Class Certification by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
75 Memorandum in Support re 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Motion for Class Certification filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
76 Notice of Hearing Date set for Feb. 15, 2019, 10:00am re 75 Memorandum in Support,, 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Motion for Class Certification (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 74 Second MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Motion for Class Certification, 72 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Motion Hearing set for 2/15/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (clar, ) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/23/2019
01/23/2019
01/23/2019
01/23/2019
01/24/2019 01/24/2019 01/24/2019 02/01/2019

77 NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Catherine Bauer on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bauer, Mary) (Main Document 77 replaced with non fillable form on 1/24/2019) (dvanm, ). (Entered: 01/23/2019)
78 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Laura Rivera and Certification of Local Counsel Mary Bauer Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04226458455. by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
79 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Luz Lopez and Certification of Local Counsel Mary Bauer Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-6458484. by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
80 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Saira Draper and Certification of Local Counsel Mary Bauer Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04226458494. by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
81 ORDER granting 78 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 01/24/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
82 ORDER granting 79 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 01/24/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
83 ORDER granting 80 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 01/24/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
84 ORDER - Pending on this court's docket are two motions for class certification, one based on the allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint, and one based on the allegations contained in the proposed Third Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file and that Defendants intend to oppose. Dkt. Nos. 28, 74.1 In order to ensure that the parties and this action proceed on one operative pleading, and for good cause shown, the court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. By consent of the parties, briefing and any argument on the pending motions for class certification is hereby stayed until after the court's resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, Dkt. No. 72. 2. By consent of the parties, Plaintiffs' Notice of Hearing Date of February 15, 2019 for their second supplemental motion for class certification, Dkt. No. 76, is hereby stricken from the docket and removed from the court's hearing calendar. Briefing and argument on the operative motion for class certification will occur pursuant to a schedule that the parties will create in good faith after the court resolves Plaintiffs' motion for

02/01/2019 02/07/2019
02/07/2019
02/07/2019 02/07/2019 02/15/2019 02/15/2019

leave to amend. 3. By consent of the parties, Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 72, will be heard by this court on February 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., as currently scheduled. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 02/01/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
85 Memorandum in Opposition re 72 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DEX 1)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
86 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for their Reply in Support of their Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
87 Waiver of re 86 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for their Reply in Support of their Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
88 ORDER granting 86 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; and it is furtherORDERED that Plaintiffs' may file a reply brief of up to twentythree (23) pages. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 2/7/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
89 Reply to Motion re 72 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
90 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema:Motion Hearing held on 2/15/2019. Appearances of counsel. Pltfs' 72 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is argued and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (order to follow) (Court Reporter A. Thomson.)(yguy) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
91 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 72] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, the pending class certification motions [Dkt. Nos. 5,28, and 74] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT, and it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs are given leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). The TAC may differ from the Second Amended Complaint only in the limited ways identified in open court; and it is further ORDERED that the parties meet and confer on a

02/17/2019
02/22/2019 02/22/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019

briefing schedule with respect to a new motion for class certification based on the TAC. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 2/15/19. (yguy) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
92 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/15/2019, before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, Court Reporter Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703-299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 3/19/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/19/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/20/2019.(thomson, anneliese) (Entered: 02/17/2019)
93 AMENDED COMPLAINT Third Amended Complaint against Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Gary L. Jones, Johnitha McNair, Timothy Smith, Steven Wagner, filed by K.T.M., Cinthia Velasquez Trail, R.A.I., J.E.C.M., Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., Jose Jiminez Saravia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1, # 2 Exhibit Exh. 2, # 3 Exhibit Exh. 3, # 4 Exhibit Exh. 4)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
94 ORDER - The parties having agreed upon a briefing schedule for the filing of a Motion for Class Certification, and for good cause shown, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 2/22/2019. (see Order for details)(dvanm, ) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
95 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Memorandum in Support of Class Certification by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
96 Waiver of re 95 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Memorandum in Support of Class Certification Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
97 ORDER granting 95 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs' may file a brief of up to thirty-three (33) pages. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 03/04/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019
03/04/2019 03/05/2019 03/05/2019 03/08/2019 03/08/2019 03/14/2019

98 Second MOTION to Seal by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
99 Memorandum in Support re 98 Second MOTION to Seal filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
100 Waiver of re 98 Second MOTION to Seal Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
101 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 98 Second MOTION to Seal (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
102 MOTION to Certify Class by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
103 Memorandum in Support re 102 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
104 Notice of Hearing Date set for 4/26/2019 re 102 MOTION to Certify Class (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
105 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 03/05/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 102 MOTION to Certify Class . Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
106 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
107 ORDER granting 106 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint on or before March 14, 2019. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/8/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
108 ANSWER to Complaint (Third Amended Complaint) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner.(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 03/14/2019 03/14/2019 03/19/2019 03/19/2019
03/19/2019
03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019

109 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Partial) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
110 Memorandum in Support re 109 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Partial) filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
111 Waiver of re 109 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Partial), 110 Memorandum in Support Oral Hearing by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
112 RESPONSE to Motion re 109 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Partial) filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
113 ORDER granting 109 Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss; and it is further ORDERED that the individual claims of all Plaintiffs are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/19/2019. (dvanm, ) Modified on 3/19/2019 (dvanm, ). (Entered: 03/19/2019)
114 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 4/10/2019 at 11:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. Discovery due by 8/9/2019. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/15/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/19/19. (Attachments: # 1 Mag.Consent, # 2 Pretrial Notice)(yguy) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
115 MOTION to Seal by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
116 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 115 MOTION to Seal (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
117 Sealed Attachment/Exhibit(s) re 115 MOTION to Seal . (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
118 Sealed Attachment/Exhibit(s) re 115 MOTION to Seal . (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
119 Sealed Attachment/Exhibit(s) re 115 MOTION to Seal . (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
120 Sealed Attachment/Exhibit(s) re 115 MOTION to Seal . (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/25/2019
03/29/2019 04/03/2019 04/03/2019
04/03/2019
04/04/2019
04/04/2019 04/08/2019

121 Sealed Attachment/Exhibit(s) re 115 MOTION to Seal . (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
122 Memorandum in Support re 115 MOTION to Seal filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
123 Memorandum in Opposition re 102 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
124 NOTICE by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail Notice of Rule 45 Subpoenas (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena to DHS, # 2 Subpoena to DOJ)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
125 Joint Proposed Discovery Plan by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner.(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
126 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 94 Order, 102 MOTION to Certify Class by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
127 Waiver of re 126 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 94 Order, 102 MOTION to Certify Class Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
128 ORDER granting 126 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs may file their Reply Brief in support of their Renewed Motion for Class Certification on Friday, April 12,2019. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 4/4/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
129 ORDER granting 115 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 4/4/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
130 Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order - Based on the parties' representations in their discovery plan, the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Pretrial Conference scheduled for April 10, 2019 (Dkt. No. 114), shall be canceled. Upon review of the pleadings and the record, it is ordered that: 1. The Rule 26(f) report (Dkt. No. 125 ) filed by the parties is approved unless modified by the court herein or hereafter. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.)

04/12/2019 04/15/2019 04/15/2019
04/19/2019 04/23/2019 04/23/2019 04/23/2019 04/26/2019 04/26/2019

Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 04/08/19. (cmar, ) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
131 REPLY to Response to Motion re 102 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex I, # 2 Exhibit Ex J, # 3 Exhibit Ex K, # 4 Exhibit Ex L, # 5 Exhibit Ex M)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
Notice of Correction re 131 Reply to Response to Motion. The signature block on the document does not match the user's login. The filing user has been notified and has been asked to either refile the document or to have the attorney whose signature block appears on the document refile the document. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
132 REPLY to Response to Motion re 102 MOTION to Certify Class CORRECTED filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex I, # 2 Exhibit Ex J, # 3 Exhibit Ex K, # 4 Exhibit Ex L, # 5 Exhibit Ex M)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
133 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner of New Controlling Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
134 STIPULATION of Protective Order (Joint) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
135 Response to 133 NOTICE filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
136 So Ordered re 134 Stipulation filed by Natasha David, Alex Azar, Steven Wagner, Jonathan Hayes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 4/23/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
137 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema:Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2019. Appearances of counsel. Pltfs' 102 MOTION to Certify Class is argued and GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. (order to follow) (Court Reporter A. Thomson.)(yguy) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
138 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and it is herebyORDERED that the following two classes be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1): (1)Minor Class: All children designated as unaccompanied alien minors who(a) were, are being, or

04/26/2019
04/29/2019 04/30/2019 04/30/2019 04/30/2019

will be held in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") anywhere in Virginia at any date on or after July 20, 2018, and (b) have been or will be held in ORR custody for 60 days or more. (2) Sponsor Class: All individuals, anywhere in the United States, who(a) have initiated the process to sponsor a member of the Minor Class(b) as a Category 1 or Category 2 sponsor (c) by either (i) returning a family reunification packet to ORR or to an ORR-contracted caseworker or (ii) otherwise advising ORR or an ORR-contracted caseworker of their desire or willingness to sponsor the Minor Class member (d) to whom the Minor Class member has not been released.Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 4/26/19. (yguy) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
139 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/26/2019, before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, Court Reporter Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703-299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 5/28/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/26/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/25/2019.(thomson, anneliese) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
140 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Document Requests by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
141 RESPONSE to Motion re 140 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Document Requests filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
142 MOTION for Clarification re 138 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
143 ORDERED that Federal Defendants' 140 motion is GRANTED; and it is furtherORDERED that Federal Defendants shall serve their responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents on or before May 3, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 4/30/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 04/30/2019)

05/01/2019 05/01/2019 05/01/2019 05/01/2019 05/02/2019 05/02/2019
05/10/2019 05/10/2019
05/10/2019 05/10/2019

144 MOTION for Extension by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
145 Waiver of re 144 MOTION for Extension by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
146 ORDER granting 144 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiffs may deliver their Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures to Defendants on May 1,2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 5/1/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
147 RESPONSE to Motion re 142 MOTION for Clarification re 138 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
148 REPLY to Response to Motion re 142 MOTION for Clarification re 138 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
149 ORDER- Accordingly, the 142 MOTION for Clarification re 138 Order on Motion to Certify Class is GRANTED; and it is hereby ORDERED that the Court's Order Dkt No. 138 be and is AMENDED to certify the following two classes in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c)(1). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/2/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
150 NOTICE of Appearance by John Robert Flores on behalf of Gary L. Jones (Flores, John) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
151 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Chandrika Vira and Certification of Local Counsel Salvador M. Bezos Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04226635060. by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
152 MOTION to Compel by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
153 Brief in Support by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re: 152 Motion to Compel . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Wolozin, Rebecca) Modified on 5/10/2019 to correct event/text (pmil, ). (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019 05/13/2019 05/14/2019 05/15/2019 05/16/2019 05/17/2019
05/17/2019
05/24/2019

154 Notice of Hearing Date set for May 17, 2019 re 152 MOTION to Compel (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 152 MOTION to Compel. Motion Hearing set for 5/17/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (jlan) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
155 ORDER granting 151 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/14/2019. (awac, ) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
156 Memorandum in Opposition re 152 MOTION to Compel filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
157 REPLY to Response to Motion re 153 MOTION to Compel Brief in Support, 152 MOTION to Compel filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 4)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
158 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff:Motion Hearing held on 5/17/2019 re 152 MOTION to Compel filed by K.T.M., J.E.C.M., B.G.S.S., Cinthia Velasquez Trail, Sandra Alvarado, R.A.I.. Appearances of counsel. Motion argued and GRANTED IN PART as to case files. Production can be done on rolling basis. All files to be produced within four weeks. Youth for Tomorrow files to be produced first and as soon as possible within the next two weeks. Motion argued and DENIED without prejudice as to documents prior to 01/01/17. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(cmar, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
159 ORDER - This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 111-115, and For Documents Prior to January 1, 2017 (Dkt. No. 152 ). Based on a review of the pleadings and the record, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in part with respect to the complete case files of the child class members as stated from the bench. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is DENIED in part without prejudice with respect to documents created before January 1, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 05/17/19. (cmar, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
160 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/17/2019, before Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff, Transcriber Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703-299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to

06/04/2019
06/05/2019 06/12/2019 06/12/2019 06/12/2019
06/14/2019 06/17/2019 06/17/2019 06/18/2019

the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 6/24/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/24/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/22/2019.(thomson, anneliese) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
161 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Jean Paul Yugo Nagashima and Certification of Local Counsel Salvador M. Bezos Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-6673901. by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
162 ORDER granting 161 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 06/05/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
163 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
164 Waiver of re 163 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
165 ORDER - For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time 163 , and for good cause shown, the Court hereby orders as follows:Plaintiffs may deliver their Rule 33 and Rule 34 Responses to Defendants on July 2, 2019. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 06/12/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
166 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
Notice of Correction re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (clar, ) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
167 Waiver of re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
168 ORDERED that plaintiffs file a response to the re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files by Thursday, June

06/19/2019
06/19/2019 06/19/2019
06/21/2019 06/21/2019
06/21/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019 06/26/2019 06/26/2019

20, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 6/18/2019. (lcre, ) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
169 RESPONSE to Motion re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
170 Waiver of re 166 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files, 169 Response to Motion, by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
171 ORDER granting 166 Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Remaining UAC Files. Plaintiffs must immediately produce the 4 UAC case files for UACs currently at Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center, and no later than June 21, 2019. Plaintiffs may produce the remaining UAC class member files on or before June 24, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 6/19/2019. (dest, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
172 Second MOTION to Compel by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
173 Memorandum in Support re 172 Second MOTION to Compel filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
174 Notice of Hearing Date re 173 Memorandum in Support, 172 Second MOTION to Compel (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 172 Second MOTION to Compel . Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (clar, ) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Nachmanoff. 172 Second MOTION to Compel (clar, ) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
175 MOTION for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
176 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Extension of Time to File. ORDERED that Federal Defendants shall disclose any expert witnesses by 7/5/2019 and that Plaintiffs shall disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses by

06/26/2019 06/27/2019 06/28/2019
06/28/2019 07/03/2019 07/05/2019 07/05/2019 07/05/2019

7/19/2019. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 6/26/2019. (rban, ) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
177 Memorandum in Opposition re 172 Second MOTION to Compel filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
178 REPLY to Response to Motion re 172 Second MOTION to Compel filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
179 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff: Motion Hearing held on 6/28/2019 re 172 Second MOTION to Compel filed by K.T.M., J.E.C.M., B.G.S.S., Cinthia Velasquez Trail, Sandra Alvarado, R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia. Appearances of counsel for plaintiff and defendant. Motion argued and granted in part. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(rban, ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
180 ORDER, for the reasons state in open court granting in part 172 Motion to Compel. ORDERED that defendants provide the complete administrative record and complete responses to the specific document requests set forth in open court by Wednesday, 7/10/2019 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 6/28/2019. (rban, ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
181 NOTICE by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 173 Memorandum in Support, Redacted Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt 173-4 Redacted)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
183 Memorandum in Support re 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
184 Notice of Hearing Date set for July 12, 2019, 10:00am re 183 Memorandum in Support, 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/05/2019)

07/08/2019 07/08/2019 07/08/2019
07/10/2019 07/10/2019 07/10/2019
07/10/2019

Set Deadlines as to 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery. Motion Hearing set for 7/12/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (clar, ) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Nachmanoff. 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery (clar, ) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
185 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/28/2019, before Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff, Transcriber Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703-299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 8/7/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/9/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/7/2019.(thomson, anneliese) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
186 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Documents From Additional Custodians by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Judith Haron)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
187 Waiver of re 186 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Documents From Additional Custodians by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
188 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff:Telephone Conference held on 7/10/2019. Appearances of counsel. Set Hearing as to 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery, 186 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Documents From Additional Custodians :. Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2019 at 01:00 PM in Alexandria Courtroom 400 before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. (Tape #FTR.)(cmar, ) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
189 RESPONSE to Motion re 186 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Documents From Additional Custodians filed by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/10/2019)

07/10/2019 07/11/2019
07/11/2019 07/16/2019 07/16/2019 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 07/18/2019 07/18/2019

190 Memorandum in Opposition re 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
191 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff:Motion Hearing held on 7/11/2019 re 186 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Documents From Additional Custodians filed by Natasha David, Alex Azar, Steven Wagner, Jonathan Hayes, 182 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court's June 28, 2019 Order and Compel ESI Discovery filed by K.T.M., J.E.C.M., B.G.S.S., Cinthia Velasquez Trail, Sandra Alvarado, R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia. Appearances of counsel. Motion to Enforce Court's Order to to Compel argued and GRANTED in part. Motion for an Enlargement of Time argued and GRANTED nuc pro tunc. All responsive documents to be produced by 07/31/19. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(cmar, ) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
192 ORDER granting in part 182 Motion to Compel; granting in part 186 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 07/11/2019. (see order for details) (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
193 Consent MOTION to Substitute Party by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
194 Waiver of re 193 Consent MOTION to Substitute Party Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, B.G.S.S., J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
195 ORDER granting 193 Motion to Substitute Party.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/17/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
196 STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court's July 11, 2019 Order by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
197 Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadline for Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
198 Waiver of re 197 Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadline for Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Reports Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron

07/18/2019 07/18/2019 07/20/2019 07/20/2019
07/22/2019 07/22/2019
07/22/2019
07/22/2019 07/23/2019

Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
199 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Tyler Lucier on behalf of Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner (Lucier, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
200 ORDER granting 197 Motion for Extension of Time to file. ORDERED that plaintiffs-petitioners have until Wednesday, July 24, 2019 to file any rebuttal expert reports. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 7/18/19. (klau, ) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
201 MOTION to Substitute Party Timothy Showalter for Timothy Smith by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/20/2019)
202 Waiver of re 201 MOTION to Substitute Party Timothy Showalter for Timothy Smith Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/20/2019)
203 ORDER granting 201 Motion to Substitute Party. Timothy Showalter added. Timothy Smith (Executive Director, Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center) terminated. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/22/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
204 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Michelle Lapointe and Certification of Local Counsel Mary Bauer Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04226750312. by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
205 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Dennies Varughese and Certification of Local Counsel Salvador M. Bezos Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-6750416. by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
206 MOTION Access to Electronic Case Record by Gary L. Jones. (Flores, John) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
207 ORDER - Flores's Motion for Access to Electronic Record 206 is DENIED, and it is hereby ORDERED that Flores contact the Clerk's Office for detailed instructions on how to access documents filed in this civil action; and it is further ORDERED that to the extent Flores is unable to access any previously filed documents, either before or after he entered his appearance in May 2019, counsel for the federal defendants must collaborate with Flores to ensure that he has a complete electronic

07/23/2019 07/23/2019 07/24/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019
07/29/2019
07/29/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019

set of all documents from which to work. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/23/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
208 ORDER granting 204 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/23/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
209 ORDER granting 205 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 07/23/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
210 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Botkins on behalf of Timothy Showalter (Botkins, Jason) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
Notice of Correction re 210 Notice of Appearance. Filing user notified that each attorney noting their appearance must file the document using their own CM/ECF credentials. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
211 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Sean Everard on behalf of Timothy Showalter (Everard, Joshua) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
212 NOTICE of Appearance by Sophia Leticia Gregg on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Gregg, Sophia) (Main Document 212 replaced on 7/29/2019) (dvanm, ). (Entered: 07/29/2019)
213 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Allow the Taking of Expert Depositions Subsequent to the Close of Discovery by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
214 Waiver of re 213 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Allow the Taking of Expert Depositions Subsequent to the Close of Discovery Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
Notice of Correction re 212 Notice of Appearance. The filing user has been notified that the notice of appearance is an incorrectly saved PDF fillable form and has been removed. The filing user was directed to refile the document. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
215 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffery A. Hall on behalf of Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner (Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
216 NOTICE of Appearance by Sophia Leticia Gregg on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Gregg, Sophia) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

07/30/2019 07/31/2019 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 08/02/2019 08/02/2019 08/05/2019

217 ORDER granting 213 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. It is hereby ORDERED that discovery shall be extended to August 30, 2019 for the sole purpose of conducting expert depositions. All other discovery deadlines shall remain the same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 07/30/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
218 NOTICE of Appearance by Granville Clayton Warner on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Warner, Granville) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
219 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristin Fisher Donovan on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Donovan, Kristin) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
220 Consent MOTION to Continue the Final Pretrial Conference and Set a Schedule for Summary Judgment Briefing by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
221 Waiver of re 220 Consent MOTION to Continue the Final Pretrial Conference and Set a Schedule for Summary Judgment Briefing Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
222 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Motion for Order Requiring NonCompliant Witness U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Show Cause Why It Should Not Be Held in Contempt by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
223 Notice of Hearing Date set for August 9, 2019, 10:00am re 222 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Motion for Order Requiring Non-Compliant Witness U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Show Cause Why It Should Not Be Held in Contempt (SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 222 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Motion for Order Requiring Non-Compliant Witness U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Show Cause Why It Should Not Be Held in Contempt. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (klau, ) (Entered: 08/05/2019)

08/07/2019 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 08/08/2019 08/09/2019
08/09/2019 09/13/2019 09/13/2019 09/13/2019
09/16/2019

224 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 223 Notice of Hearing Date, Withdrawal of Notice of Hearing Without Prejudice (Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
Per LMB Chambers motion hearing set for 8/9/19 has been withdrawn. (klau, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
225 Consent MOTION to Take Deposition from Y.Y.L.R. by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
226 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the deposition of Y.Y.L.R. may proceed as scheduled on August 9, 2019, beginning at 10:00 AM. (see order for details) Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 8/8/19. (yguy) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
227 ORDER granting 220 Motion to Continue. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment due 9/16; Defendants' Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment due 10/16; Plaintiffs' Reply and Opposition due 10/31; Defendants' Reply due 11/15; Summary Judgment hearing 11/22/2019 at 10:00 a.m.; The final pretrial conference currently set for 8/15/2019 at 10:00 a.m., is hereby continued until a date to be determined. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 8/9/2019. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
Alexandria Set/Reset Hearings: Summary Judgment Hearing set for 11/22/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
228 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Summary Judgment Memoranda by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
229 Waiver of re 228 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Summary Judgment Memoranda Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
230 ORDER re 228 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages ORDERED that: Plaintiffs may submit a memorandum of up to forty-five pages in support of their motion for summary judgment ---- the Court's August 9, 2019 Order regarding summary judgment briefing [Dkt. 227] remains unchanged in all other respects (see order for details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 9/13/19. (klau, ) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
231 Administrative Record by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail..

09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019
09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019

(Attachments: # 1 Wagner Certification, # 2 AR (PDF portion) - Part 1 of 12, # 3 AR (PDF portion) - Part 2 of 12, # 4 AR (PDF portion) - Part 3 of 12)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
232 NOTICE by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 231 Administrative Record, (parts 4 through 6) (Attachments: # 1 AR (PDF portion) - Part 4 of 12, # 2 AR (PDF portion) - Part 5 of 12, # 3 AR (PDF portion) - Part 6 of 12)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
233 NOTICE by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 231 Administrative Record, (parts 7 through 9) (Attachments: # 1 AR (PDF portion) - Part 7 of 12, # 2 AR (PDF portion) - Part 8 of 12, # 3 AR (PDF portion) - Part 9 of 12)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
234 NOTICE by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 231 Administrative Record, (parts 10 through 12) (Attachments: # 1 AR (PDF portion) - Part 10 of 12, # 2 AR (PDF portion) - Part 11 of 12, # 3 AR (PDF portion) - Part 12 of 12)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
235 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Evidence via CD by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
236 Waiver of re 235 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Evidence via CD (Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
237 MOTION to Seal and Redact by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
238 Memorandum in Support re 237 MOTION to Seal and Redact filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
239 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 237 MOTION to Seal and Redact (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
240 Sealed Memorandum in Support re 237 MOTION to Seal and Redact. (Attachments: # 1 (Sealed)Exhibit 4, # 2 (Sealed)Exhibit 7,

09/16/2019 09/16/2019
09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/18/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019

# 3 (Sealed)Exhibit 8, # 4 (Sealed)Exhibit 9, # 5 (Sealed)Exhibit 10, # 6 (Sealed)Exhibit 12, # 7 (Sealed)Exhibit 14, # 8 (Sealed)Exhibit 15, # 9 (Sealed)Exhibit 16, # 10 (Sealed)Exhibit 20, # 11 (Sealed)Exhibit 24, # 12 (Sealed)Exhibit 25, # 13 (Sealed)Exhibit 26, # 14 (Sealed)Exhibit 27, # 15 (Sealed)Exhibit 29, # 16 (Sealed)Exhibit 30, # 17 (Sealed)Exhibit 31, # 18 (Sealed)Exhibit 32, # 19 (Sealed)Exhibit 33, # 20 (Sealed)Exhibit 35, # 21 (Sealed)Exhibit 37, # 22 (Sealed)Exhibit 38)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
241 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
242 Memorandum in Support re 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Redacted) filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover Sheets (Sealed Exhs. 4, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 20, 24-27, 29-33, 35, 37-38), # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 11, # 8 Exhibit 13, # 9 Exhibit 17, # 10 Exhibit 18, # 11 Exhibit 19, # 12 Exhibit 21 part 1, # 13 Exhibit 21 part 2, # 14 Exhibit 22, # 15 Exhibit 23, # 16 Exhibit 28, # 17 Exhibit 34, # 18 Exhibit 36)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
Notice of Correction re 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
243 Notice of Hearing Date set for Nov. 22, 2019, 10:00am re 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
244 ORDER granting 237 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 09/17/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
245 ORDER denying 235 Consent Motion for Leave to File Evidence via CD. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 09/17/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing set for 11/22/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (clar, ) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
246 MOTION to Seal and Redact by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
247 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 246 MOTION to Seal and Redact (Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019
10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019
10/16/2019

248 Sealed Document re 246 MOTION to Seal and Redact. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DEX2, # 2 Exhibit DEX9, # 3 Exhibit DEX10, # 4 Exhibit DEX11, # 5 Exhibit DEX12, # 6 Exhibit DEX15, # 7 Exhibit DEX16, # 8 Exhibit DEX17, # 9 Exhibit DEX18 part 1, # 10 Exhibit DEX 18 part 2, # 11 Exhibit DEX 18 part 3)(Hall, Jeffery) Modified on 10/21/2019 (dvanm, ). (Entered: 10/16/2019)
249 Sealed Document re 246 MOTION to Seal and Redact. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DEX 19, # 2 Exhibit DEX20, # 3 Exhibit DEX 21, # 4 Exhibit DEX 22, # 5 Exhibit DEX 29 part 1, # 6 Exhibit DEX 29 part 2)(Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
250 Sealed Document re 246 MOTION to Seal and Redact. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DEX 29 part 3, # 2 Exhibit DEX 29 part 4, # 3 Exhibit DEX 29 part 5)(Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
251 Sealed Document re 246 MOTION to Seal and Redact. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DEX 29 part 6, # 2 Exhibit DEX 32, # 3 Exhibit DEX 33 part 1, # 4 Exhibit DEX 33 part 2, # 5 Exhibit DEX 34)(Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
252 Memorandum in Support re 246 MOTION to Seal and Redact filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
254 Memorandum in Support re 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit DX1, # 3 Exhibit DX2, # 4 Exhibit DX3, # 5 Exhibit DX4, # 6 Exhibit DX5, # 7 Exhibit DX6, # 8 Exhibit DX7, # 9 Exhibit DX8, # 10 Exhibit DX9, # 11 Exhibit DX10, # 12 Exhibit DX11, # 13 Exhibit DX12, # 14 Exhibit DX13, # 15 Exhibit DX14, # 16 Exhibit DX15, # 17 Exhibit DX16, # 18 Exhibit DX17, # 19 Exhibit DX18, # 20 Exhibit DX19, # 21 Exhibit DX20, # 22 Exhibit DX21, # 23 Exhibit DX22, # 24 Exhibit DX23)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
255 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 254 Memorandum in Support,, Additional Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DX24, # 2 Exhibit DX25, # 3 Exhibit DX26, # 4 Exhibit DX27, # 5 Exhibit DX28, # 6 Exhibit DX29, # 7 Exhibit DX30, # 8 Exhibit DX31, # 9 Exhibit DX32, # 10 Exhibit DX33, # 11 Exhibit DX34, # 12 Exhibit DX35, # 13 Exhibit DX36, # 14 Exhibit DX37)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/17/2019 10/17/2019 10/17/2019
10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10/29/2019

256 Memorandum in Opposition re 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
257 Notice of Hearing Date set for 11/22/2019 re 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
Set Deadlines as to 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing set for 11/22/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (clar, ) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
258 ORDER granting 246 Motion to Seal and redact. ORDERED that the Proposed Sealed Documents shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk, until otherwise directed. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/17/2019. (dest, ) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
259 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 231 Administrative Record, (Converted Excel Spreadsheets) (Attachments: # 1 TPT 01.03.2017, # 2 TPT 01.18.2017, # 3 TPT 01.19.2017, # 4 TPT 02.01.2017, # 5 TPT 02.02.2017, # 6 TPT 02.14.2017, # 7 TPT 03.07.2017, # 8 TPT 03.07.2017B, # 9 TPT 03.07.2017C, # 10 TPT 03.30.2017, # 11 TPT 04.12.2017, # 12 TPT 05.04.2017, # 13 TPT 05.12.2017, # 14 TPT 06.08.2017, # 15 TPT 08.08.2017, # 16 TPT 08.24.2017, # 17 TPT 10.10.2017, # 18 TPT 10.26.2017, # 19 TPT 11.17.2017, # 20 TPT 12.08.2017, # 21 TPT 01.05.2018, # 22 TPT 01.05.2018B, # 23 TPT 02.02.2018, # 24 TPT 03.02.2018, # 25 TPT 03.16.2018, # 26 TPT 03.29.2018, # 27 TPT 04.12.2018)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
260 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Summary Judgment Reply Memoranda by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
261 Waiver of re 260 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Summary Judgment Reply Memoranda Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (SandovalMoshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
262 ORDER granting 260 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/25/2019. (see order for details) (dvanm, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
263 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Anna Grace Phillips and Certification of Local Counsel Salvador M. Bezos Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-6912274. by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose

10/30/2019 10/31/2019 10/31/2019 10/31/2019
10/31/2019 10/31/2019
10/31/2019
10/31/2019 11/01/2019 11/15/2019

Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
264 ORDER granting 263 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/30/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
265 MOTION to Seal and Redact by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bezos, Salvador) Modified to correct filer on 11/1/2019 (dvanm, ). (Entered: 10/31/2019)
266 Memorandum in Support re 265 MOTION to Seal and Redact filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Bezos, Salvador) Modified to correct filer on 11/1/2019 (dvanm, ). (Entered: 10/31/2019)
267 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 265 MOTION to Seal and Redact (Bezos, Salvador) Modified to correct filer on 11/1/2019 (dvanm, ). (Entered: 10/31/2019)
268 Sealed Response/Reply/Opposition re 265 MOTION to Seal and Redact. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PX 39, # 2 Exhibit PX 43, # 3 Exhibit PX 44, # 4 Exhibit PX 46, # 5 Exhibit PX 48, # 6 Exhibit PX 50, # 7 Exhibit PX 51, # 8 Exhibit PX 52)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
269 Reply to 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment In Support filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibits 39, 43-46, 48, 50-52, # 2 Exhibit PX 40, # 3 Exhibit PX 41, # 4 Exhibit PX 42, # 5 Exhibit PX 47, # 6 Exhibit PX 49)(Bezos, Salvador) Modified to correct filer on 11/1/2019 (dvanm, ). (Entered: 10/31/2019)
270 Reply to 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibits 39, 43-46, 48, 50-52, # 2 Exhibit PX 40, # 3 Exhibit PX 41, # 4 Exhibit PX 42, # 5 Exhibit PX 47, # 6 Exhibit PX 49)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
271 Sealed Attachment/Exhibit PX 45 re 268 Sealed Response/Reply/Opposition,. (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
272 ORDER granting 265 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/1/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
273 MOTION to Seal by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/15/2019 11/15/2019 11/15/2019 11/15/2019 11/19/2019 11/20/2019 11/22/2019
12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/12/2019 12/12/2019

274 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 273 MOTION to Seal (Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
275 (Sealed) Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment re 273 MOTION to Seal . (Hall, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
276 Memorandum in Support re 273 MOTION to Seal filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Hall, Jeffery) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
277 REPLY to Response to Motion re 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
278 ORDER granting 273 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/18/2019. (rban, ) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
279 NOTICE of Appearance by Dallin George Glenn on behalf of Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Glenn, Dallin) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
280 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema:Motion Hearing held on 11/22/2019. Appearances of counsel. 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment are argued and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter A. Thomson.)(yguy) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
281 Memorandum (Supplemental) to 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
282 Memorandum (Supplemental) to 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Glenn, Dallin) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
283 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Mary C. Bauer) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
284 Waiver of re 283 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Mary C. Bauer) (Waiver of Oral Argument) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019 12/12/2019 12/13/2019 12/13/2019 12/22/2019 01/06/2020
01/06/2020 04/02/2020 04/02/2020

285 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Saira Draper) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
286 Waiver of re 285 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Saira Draper) (Waiver of Oral Argument) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
287 ORDER granting 283 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Mary Catherine Bauer terminated. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 12/13/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
288 ORDER granting 285 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney as Saira Draper.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 12/13/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
289 NOTICE by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 282 Memorandum, 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Supplemental Notice Relating to Mootness (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon) (Entered: 12/22/2019)
290 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/22/2019, before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, Court Reporter Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703-299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 2/5/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/6/2020.(thomson, anneliese) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
291 Response to 289 NOTICE, filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
292 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Michelle Lapointe) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
293 Waiver of re 292 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Michelle Lapointe) (Waiver of Oral Argument) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M.,

04/02/2020 05/06/2020 05/06/2020
05/06/2020 05/06/2020 05/06/2020 05/06/2020
05/06/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020

K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail (Bezos, Salvador) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
294 ORDER granting 292 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 4/2/2020. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
296 Memorandum in Support re 295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Under Seal, # 4 Exhibit Under Seal)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
297 Notice of Hearing Date re 296 Memorandum in Support, 295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
298 MOTION to Seal by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
299 Memorandum in Support re 298 MOTION to Seal filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
300 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., Blanca Jeronimo Sis, K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 299 Memorandum in Support, 298 MOTION to Seal (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
301 Sealed Memorandum in Support re 295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Under Seal, # 4 Exhibit Under seal)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
Set Deadlines as to 295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . Motion Hearing set for 5/15/2020 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (clar, ) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
302 ORDER granting 298 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/7/2020. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/07/2020
05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020
05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020

303 RESPONSE to Motion re 295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , RESPONSE in Opposition filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 DEX 1 - Redacted, # 2 DEX 2 - Redacted, # 3 DEX 3, # 4 DEX 4, # 5 DEX 5)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
304 MOTION to Seal by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
305 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 304 MOTION to Seal (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
306 Sealed Response/Reply/Opposition re 303 Response to Motion,, Response in Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 DEX 1 Unredacted, # 2 DEX 2 - Unredacted)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
307 Memorandum in Support re 304 MOTION to Seal filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
308 Waiver of re 304 MOTION to Seal by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
309 Reply to 306 Sealed Response/Reply/Opposition, 303 Response to Motion,, Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
310 MOTION to Seal by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
311 Memorandum in Support re 310 MOTION to Seal filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
312 Notice of Filing Sealing Motion LCvR5(C) by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail re 310 MOTION to Seal (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
313 Sealed Response/Reply/Opposition re 303 Response to Motion,, Response in Opposition to Motion, 296 Memorandum in Support, 295 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . (Attachments:

05/08/2020
05/08/2020 05/08/2020
05/15/2020 06/24/2020 07/08/2020 07/08/2020 03/12/2021 03/15/2021

# 1 Exhibit Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
314 ORDER granting 304 Motion to Seal; directing that that Federal Defendants' unredacted notice paper regarding Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and DEX 1 and DEX 2 submitted therewith (Dkt. Nos. 306, 306-1,306-2) shall be maintained under seal. (See order for details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/8/2020. (aott) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
315 ORDER granting 310 Petitioners' Motion to Seal and Redact. (See order for details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/8/2020. (aott) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
316 ORDER - For the reasons stated during a telephone conference held on the record with attorneys for all parties present, plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 295 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and it is hereby ORDERED that the parties file a Status Report no later than May 15, 2020. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/8/2020. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
317 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
318 ORDERED that by Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the parties submit to the Court any updated authority relevant to their cross-motions for summary judgment. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 06/24/2020. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
319 Memorandum of Updated Authority to 241 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 270 Reply, 242 Memorandum in Support,, 240 Sealed Memorandum in Support,, filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
320 Memorandum of Updated Authorities to 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner. (Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
321 NOTICE by Alex Azar, Natasha David, Jonathan Hayes, Steven Wagner re 253 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding April 2018 MOA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yang, Catherine) (Entered: 03/12/2021)
322 Reply to 321 NOTICE filed by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/15/2021)

03/17/2021 03/17/2021 05/07/2021 05/07/2021 05/13/2021
06/02/2021 06/03/2021

323 ORDER that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 241] and defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 253] be and are HELD IN ABEYANCE. ORDERED that this civil action be and is scheduled for at status conference on May 7, 2021 at 10:00 am ----(see order for details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/17/21. (klau, ) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/7/2021 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 700 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (klau, ) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
324 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema:Status Conference held on 5/7/2021. Appearances of counsel. Court advised of case status. Counsel directed to rebrief issues believed to be remaining in case within 30 days. (Court Reporter A. Thomson.)(yguy) # 1 Deft Exh #1) (Entered: 05/07/2021)
325 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court, it is hereby ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this Order, the parties submit supplemental briefing as discussed in court. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/7/21. (yguy) (Entered: 05/07/2021)
326 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/7/2021, before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, Court Reporter Anneliese Thomson, Telephone number 703299-8595. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 6/14/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/13/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/11/2021.(Thomson, Anneliese) (Entered: 05/13/2021)
327 MOTION for Extension of filing deadline by Sandra Alvarado, J.E.C.M., K.T.M., R.A.I., Jose Jiminez Saravia, Byron Gustavo Sis Sis, Cinthia Velasquez Trail. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wolozin, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/02/2021)
328 ORDER granting 327 Motion for Extension of Briefing Deadline. ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendants may each submit their supplemental briefing and joint appendix, as ordered by the Court (Dkt. No. 325), on June 17, 2021. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 06/03/2021. (lber) (Entered: 06/03/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/15/2021 13:04:08

CRClearinghouse Client Code: Eric Gripp

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:18-cv-00903LMB-MSN

30

Cost:

3.00

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 38 PageID# 1140

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

J.E.C.M.,a minor,by and through his next friend
JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA,et al..

Plaintiffs/Petitioners,

l:18-cv-00903(LMB/MSN)

SCOTT LLOYD,Director,Office ofRefugee Resettlement, et al..
Defendants/Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs/petitioners("plaintiffs")in this putative class action' are four minors from

Central America designated as"unaccompanied alien children" who are,or who have been,in the custody ofthe Office ofRefugee Resettlement("ORR")and the four sponsors who filed
family reunification applications on their behalf. Defendants/respondents("defendants")^ are the

minors' custodians and the officials responsible for administering ORR's policies with respect to the detention and release of unaccompanied minors. Plaintiffs allege that defendants' policies violate constitutional,statutory,and administrative law,and they seek declaratory and habeas reliefas well as attorney's fees and costs. Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss for

'Plaintiffs have filed two motions for class certification[Dkt.Nos.5 and 28]. The Court has
stayed both motions[Dkt.No.20]pending resolution ofdefendants' motion to dismiss.
2 Defendants are Scott Lloyd,Director ofORR;Jonathan White,Deputy Director ofORR; Natasha David,ORR Federal Field Specialist; Alex Azar,Secretary ofthe Department ofHealth and Human Services; Steven Wagner,Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families;Johnitha McNair,Executive Director ofthe Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center;Timothy Smith,Executive Director ofthe Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center;and Gary L.Jones,ChiefExecutive Officer ofYouth for Tomorrow.

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 2 of 38 PageID# 1141

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 3 of 38 PageID# 1142

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 4 of 38 PageID# 1143

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 5 of 38 PageID# 1144

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 6 of 38 PageID# 1145

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 7 of 38 PageID# 1146

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 8 of 38 PageID# 1147

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 9 of 38 PageID# 1148

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 10 of 38 PageID# 1149

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 11 of 38 PageID# 1150

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 12 of 38 PageID# 1151

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 13 of 38 PageID# 1152

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 14 of 38 PageID# 1153

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 15 of 38 PageID# 1154

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 16 of 38 PageID# 1155

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 17 of 38 PageID# 1156

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 18 of 38 PageID# 1157

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 19 of 38 PageID# 1158

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 20 of 38 PageID# 1159
sought in the first place, amounts to such a restraint on their liberty that they remain in "custody"
under § 2241.
Finally, plaintiffs rely on the "particular traits ofcivil class actions"as they relate to justiciability principles, Sanchez-Gomez.138 S. Ct. at 1538,arguing that their putative class claims change the mootness calculus. To be sure,a defendant cannot nullify a putative class
action by strategically "picking off named plaintiffs' claims while a class certification motion is pending. Pis.' Opp'n 8(citing Wilson v. Gordon.822 F.3d 934,947-51 (6th Cir. 2016)). Similarly, certain claims by their nature are so "inherently transitory" that class claims remain justiciable even ifthe underlying individual claims become moot before the court can rule on class certification.Id at 10(citing U.S.Parole Comm'n v. Geraghtv.445 U.S.388,399(1980)). Courts in this district have recognized as much,^Revna v. Hott. No. 1:17-cv-01192,2018 WL 3551558,at *3(E.D. Va. Mar.20,2018),and defendants offer no objection, Defs.' Reply 2 n.l (recognizing "that the pending class action claims do not automatically become moot because these individuals' claims have become moot"). But neither doctrine saves individual claims from being mooted. Here,the three minor plaintiffs who have been released and the three sponsors to whom they have been released received the reliefthey sought in this litigation;they no longer possess the requisite stake to press their individual claims. Accordingly,the Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual claims advanced by J.E.C.M.,Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado,K.T.M.,and Velasquez Trail.
2. Ripeness
On the reverse side ofthejusticiability coin,defendants argue that B.G.S.S.'s and Jeronimo Sis's claims are not ripe. In defendants' view,the only Article III injury that could sustain their challenge to ORR's policies would be an outright denial ofJeronimo Sis's family
20

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 21 of 38 PageID# 1160

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 22 of 38 PageID# 1161

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 23 of 38 PageID# 1162

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 24 of 38 PageID# 1163

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 25 of 38 PageID# 1164

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 26 of 38 PageID# 1165

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 27 of 38 PageID# 1166

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 28 of 38 PageID# 1167

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 29 of 38 PageID# 1168

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 30 of 38 PageID# 1169

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 31 of 38 PageID# 1170

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 32 of 38 PageID# 1171

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 33 of 38 PageID# 1172

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 34 of 38 PageID# 1173

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 35 of 38 PageID# 1174

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 36 of 38 PageID# 1175

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 37 of 38 PageID# 1176

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 60 Filed 11/15/18 Page 38 of 38 PageID# 1177

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 81 PageID# 1260

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

J.E.C.M.,1 a minor, by and through his next friend JOSE

)

JIMENEZ SARAVIA, and JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA;

)

)

B.G.S.S., a minor, by and through his next friend INGRID

)

SIS SIS, and INGRID SIS SIS;

)

)

R.A.I., a minor, by and through her next friend SANDRA

)

ALVARADO, and SANDRA ALVARADO;

)

)

K.T.M., a minor, by and through his next friend CINTHIA )

VELASQUEZ TRAIL; and CINTHIA VELASQUEZ

)

TRAIL;

)

)

M.C.L., a minor, by and through her next friend REYNA

)

LUVIANO VARGAS, and REYNA LUVIANO VARGAS; )

)

A.Y.S.R., a minor, by and through her next friend LINDSAY )

TOCZYLOWSKI;

)

)

J.A.T.L., a minor, by and through his next friend CANDY

)

LEMUS, and CANDY LEMUS;

)

)

C.E.C.P., a minor, by and through his next friend KAYLA

)

VAZQUEZ, and KAYLA VAZQUEZ;

)

)

E.A.R.R., a minor, by and through his next friend

)

FRANCISCO RAMOS CHILEL, and FRANCISCO RAMOS )

CHILEL;

)

)

Y.R.R.B., a minor, by and through his next friend ASTRIN )

MELISSA CENTENO IRIAS, and ASTRIN MELISSA

)

CENTENO IRIAS;

)

)

C.M.M., a minor, by and through his next friend

)

MAGDALENA MIGUEL, and MAGDALENA MIGUEL; )

and

)

Case No. 1:18-CV-903-LMB
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

1 In compliance with Local Civil Rule 7(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, J.E.C.M., B.G.S.S., R.A.I., K.T.M., M.C.L., A.Y.S.R., J.A.T.L., C.E.C.P., E.A.R.R., Y.R.R.B., C.M.M. and A.C.M.S., minors, are identified only by their initials. Plaintiffs’ counsel will e-mail a list of full names to counsel for Defendants.

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 81 PageID# 1261

A.C.M.S., a minor, by and through her next friend JUAN

)

BAUTISTA MALDONADO MURILLO, and JUAN

)

BAUTISTA MALDONADO MURILLO,

)

)

On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; )

)

CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC.; )

and

)

)

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT;

)

)

Plaintiffs/Petitioners,

)

)

v.

)

)

JONATHAN HAYES, Acting Director, Office of Refugee )

Resettlement;

)

)

JALLYN SUALOG, Deputy Director, Office of Refugee

)

Resettlement;

)

)

LYNN JOHNSON, Assistant Secretary for the Administration )

for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and

)

Human Services;

)

)

ALEX AZAR, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and

)

Human Services;

)

)

NATASHA DAVID, Federal Field Specialist, Office of

)

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

RICHARD ZAPATA, Federal Field Specialist, Office of

)

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

ALEX SANCHEZ, Federal Field Specialist, Office of

)

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

KAREN HUSTED, Federal Field Specialist, Office of

)

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

KRISTOPHER CANTU, Federal Field Specialist, Office of )

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

CATHERINE LAURIE, Federal Field Specialist, Office of )

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 81 PageID# 1262

YESSENIA HEATH, Federal Field Specialist, Office of

)

Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

FEDERAL FIELD SPECIALIST FOR HOMESTEAD FLA., )

Federal Field Specialists, Office of Refugee Resettlement;

)

)

JOHNITHA MCNAIR, Executive Director, Northern Virginia )

Juvenile Detention Center;

)

)

TIMOTHY SMITH, Executive Director, Shenandoah Valley )

Juvenile Detention Center;

)

)

GARY L. JONES, Chief Executive Officer, Youth For

)

Tomorrow;

)

)

LAURIE ANNE SPAGNOLA, President & CEO, Board of )

Child Care;

)

)

KEVIN DINNIN, Executive Director, BCFS;

)

)

KAREN LEE, Chief Executive Officer, Pioneer Human

)

Services;

)

)

MELINDA GIOVENGO, Chief Executive Officer and

)

President, YouthCare;

)

)

JOYCE CAPELLE, CEO, Crittenton Services for Children )

and Families; and

)

)

GARY PALMER, President and CEO, Comprehensive Health )

Services,

)

)

Defendants/Respondents.

)

)

)

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 81 PageID# 1263
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................................4 THE PARTIES.................................................................................................................................4
Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................4 Defendants/Habeas Corpus Respondents ................................................................8 Habeas Corpus Respondents Only...........................................................................8 BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK.........................................................................10 The governing legal framework requires ORR to promptly release children to adequate sponsors, and otherwise act in the best interests of the children in its custody....................................................................10 ORR’s current reunification policies and practices do not work to promptly release children to adequate sponsors, and violate the Due Process rights of children and their sponsors. ................................................12 ORR’s fingerprint-sharing agreement with ICE frustrates its mission of promptly releasing children to adequate sponsors, was designed for an improper purpose, and is not in the best interests of the children in ORR’s custody. ..............................................................................21 FACTS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFFS.....................................................................................33 J.E.C.M. and his sponsor Jose Jimenez Saravia ....................................................33 B.G.S.S. and his sponsor, Ingrid Sis Sis ................................................................35 R.A.I. and her sponsor Sandra Alvarado ...............................................................40 K.T.M. and his sponsor Cinthia Velasquez Trail...................................................41 M.C.L. and her sponsor, Reyna Luviano Vargas...................................................42 A.Y.S.R. .................................................................................................................44 J.A.T.L. and his sponsor, Candy Lemus ................................................................46 C.E.C.P. and his sponsor, Kayla Vazquez .............................................................48 E.A.R.R. and his sponsor, Francisco Ramos Chilel...............................................50
i

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 5 of 81 PageID# 1264 Y.R.R.B. and his sponsor, Astrin Melissa Centeno Irias .......................................51 C.M.M. and his sponsor, Magdalena Miguel.........................................................54 A.C.M.S. and her sponsor, Juan Bautista Maldonado Murillo ..............................56 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. ............................................................58 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project .....................................................................60
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..............................................................................................63 CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................................................................................67 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................73
ii

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 6 of 81 PageID# 1265
INTRODUCTION 1. As revealed by a recently leaked memorandum, the Trump administration decided to deter illegal immigration by enacting a policy to use detained immigrant children as bait to arrest immigrants who come forward to sponsor them, even while explicitly acknowledging that this would prolong the detention of immigrant children. To do this, they twisted the sponsorship process from its Congressionally mandated purpose of ensuring children’s safety while placing them in the least restrictive setting as quickly as possible, introducing steps counterproductive to that goal that were instead designed to facilitate civil immigration enforcement against sponsors. 2. Plaintiffs J.E.C.M., B.G.S.S., R.A.I., K.T.M., M.C.L., A.Y.S.R., J.A.T.L., C.E.C.P., E.A.R.R., Y.R.R.B., C.M.M. and A.C.M.S. (the “child Plaintiffs”) are among many tens of thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children who have made the long and perilous journey to the United States surviving trauma and fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries, only to find themselves detained by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at sites around the country. 3. Plaintiffs Jose Jimenez Saravia, Ingrid Sis Sis, Sandra Alvarado, Cinthia Velasquez Trial, Reyna Luviano Vargas, Candy Lemus, Kayla Vazquez, Francisco Ramos Chilel, Astrin Melissa Centeno Irias, Magdalena Miguel and Juan Bautista Maldonado Murillo (the “sponsor Plaintiffs”) are individuals who have agreed to open their homes to the child Plaintiffs so that they need no longer be detained at government institutions, and now find themselves subject to an arbitrary, standard-free, seemingly endless vetting process that furthermore unnecessarily places them at heightened risk for arrest by federal immigration authorities. 4. Plaintiffs Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”) and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (“NWIRP”) are organizations that assist immigrant youth and their
1

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 7 of 81 PageID# 1266
family members in navigating the immigration system in the United States, including the ORR sponsorship process. They now find this work to be much more difficult and costly based on the ORR policies challenged herein.
5. In recognition of the plight and vulnerability of unaccompanied immigrant children, Congress enacted laws specifically to protect them, establishing a preference for release over lengthy detention and requiring that ORR promptly reunite these children with loved ones in the United States, while their immigration cases are adjudicated. As Defendant Lynn Johnson, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, put it: “The children should be home with their parents. The government makes lousy parents.”2
6. Yet the government’s policies and practices regarding the release of immigrant children and the reunification of immigrant families do just the opposite. ORR has implemented the sponsorship process in an opaque and arbitrary manner, lacking sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, and designed to stymie—rather than facilitate—the release of detained immigrant children. Family members or other sponsors seeking to open their home to a child in ORR custody must submit to an opaque process with shifting goalposts; with no delineated timelines whatsoever; which includes procedural steps designed solely to facilitate immigration enforcement against the sponsor, to the detriment of the child’s interest in speedy release from detention and in family unity; where the primary decisionmaker, a case manager, has tremendous subjective discretion and unreviewable power to deny a sponsorship application; and which
2 John Burnett, “Several Thousand Migrant Children In U.S. Custody Could Be Released Before Christmas,” Dec. 18, 2018, National Public Radio, available at https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/ 677894942/several-thousand-migrant-children-in-u-s-custodycould-be-released-before-christ.
2

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 8 of 81 PageID# 1267
(unless the sponsor is the child’s parent) results in no written decision and no opportunity for appeal. Meanwhile, the children are trapped in highly restrictive government-controlled facilities, as if they were prisoners serving out criminal sentences without any semblance of due process.
7. To make matters worse, in April 2018, ORR entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereby ORR agreed to share with ICE the information it gathered during the family reunification petition process about sponsors and others living in the household. It has become clear that the intended purpose of sharing this information was to facilitate DHS’s efforts to arrest and remove undocumented immigrants. The effects of this policy have predictably led to fewer individuals coming forward to sponsor children in ORR detention, thus increasing the time that children were detained. The MOA also directly increased the length of children’s detention by adding new procedural hurdles, again designed to facilitate DHS immigration enforcement against sponsors and others in their household.
8. As a result of these policies, ORR has held tens of thousands of children across the country in custody for excessive amounts of time and has illegally and improperly denied them the opportunity to reunite with their families. These children deserve the opportunity to live in a healthy, nurturing, and healing environment that their sponsors are prepared to provide while awaiting adjudication of their immigration claims, and Defendants should not be permitted to delay this reunification any further.
9. Given the continued specter of indefinite detention of immigrant children, and given ORR’s continued facilitation of ICE arrests of sponsors to the detriment of the children in its care, Plaintiffs now seek the Court’s intervention so that detained immigrant children will no
3

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 9 of 81 PageID# 1268
longer be subjected to the grievous harms that children suffer when separated from their families. Defendants’ actions violate the federal statute that governs the detention and release of immigrant children, the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) requirements for promulgating rules, the APA’s prohibition on unreasonable delays and arbitrary and capricious agency conduct, and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Defendants’ actions are causing serious and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and the other potential sponsors and caregivers of released unaccompanied children (UACs). Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court to end these violations and harms.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus); and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus). 11. Venue is proper in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred and continue to occur in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) because Plaintiffs J.E.C.M., R.A.I., and K.T.M. were detained within this district at the time the Complaint [Dkt. #1] and First and Second Amended Complaints [Dkts. ##4, 21] were filed.
THE PARTIES Plaintiffs
12. Plaintiff J.E.C.M. is a 13-year-old boy from Honduras who was detained by the defendants beginning on or about February 27, 2018 until July 26, 2018.
13. Plaintiff Jose Jimenez Saravia is J.E.C.M.’s brother-in-law and ORR sponsor. He lives in New Jersey. Prior to J.E.C.M.’s detention by defendants, Mr. Jimenez Saravia has had a long history of contact and a close relationship with him from an early age.
4

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 10 of 81 PageID# 1269
14. Plaintiff B.G.S.S. is a 17-year-old boy from Guatemala who has been detained by the defendants beginning on or about May 11, 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
15. Plaintiff Ingrid Sis Sis is B.G.S.S.’s ORR sponsor, and his niece. She lives in Virginia. Prior to B.G.S.S.’s detention by Defendants, Ms. Sis has had a long history of contact and a close relationship with B.G.S.S. from an early age.
16. Plaintiff R.A.I. is a 15-year-old girl from Honduras who was detained by the Defendants beginning on or about April 26, 2018 until some time after September 21, 2018.
17. Plaintiff Sandra Alvarado is R.A.I.’s sister and ORR sponsor, and has been her primary caregiver since she was 5 years old. She lives in Maryland.
18. Plaintiff K.T.M. is a 15-year-old boy from Honduras who was detained by defendants beginning on or about March 31, 2018 until some time after September 21, 2018.
19. Plaintiff Cinthia Velasquez Trail is K.T.M.’s sister and ORR sponsor. She lives in Texas. Prior to K.T.M.’s detention by Defendants, Ms. Velasquez Trail had a long history of contact and a close relationship with him from an early age.
20. Plaintiff M.C.L. is a 14-year-old girl from Mexico who has been detained by Defendants since about November 6, 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
21. Plaintiff Reyna Luviano Vargas is M.C.L.’s mother and ORR sponsor. She lives in California.
22. Plaintiff A.Y.S.R. is a 17-year-old girl from El Salvador who has been detained by Defendants since about September 21, 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
5

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 11 of 81 PageID# 1270
23. Plaintiff J.A.T.L. is an eleven-year-old boy from Honduras who has been detained by Defendants since about August 27, 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
24. Plaintiff Candy Lemus is J.A.T.L.’s aunt and ORR sponsor. Prior to J.A.T.L.’s detention by Defendants, Ms. Lemus has had a long history of contact and a close relationship with J.A.T.L. from an early age. She lives in South Carolina.
25. Plaintiff C.E.C.P. is a 17-year-old boy from Honduras who has been detained by Defendants since about August 22, 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
26. Plaintiff Kayla Vazquez is the wife of C.E.C.P.’s cousin, and is C.E.C.P.’s ORR sponsor. Prior to C.E.C.P.’s detention by Defendants, Ms. Vazquez had a history of contact and a personal relationship with C.E.C.P. She lives in Connecticut.
27. Plaintiff E.A.R.R. is a 17-year-old boy from Guatemala who has been detained by Defendants since about July 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
28. Plaintiff Francisco Ramos Chilel is E.A.R.R.’s father and ORR sponsor. He lives in Florida.
29. Plaintiff Y.R.R.B. is a 16-year-old boy from Honduras who has been detained by Defendants since about September 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
30. Plaintiff Astrin Melissa Centeno Irias is Y.R.R.B.’s older sister and ORR sponsor. Prior to Y.R.R.B.’s detention by Defendants, Ms. Centeno Irias has had a long history of contact and a close relationship with Y.R.R.B. from his birth. She lives in Texas.
6

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 12 of 81 PageID# 1271
31. Plaintiff C.M.M. is a 15-year-old boy from Guatemala who has been detained by Defendants for about six months, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
32. Plaintiff Magdalena Miguel is C.M.M.’s mother and ORR sponsor. She lives in Florida.
33. Plaintiff A.C.M.S. is a 17-year-old girl from Honduras who has been detained by Defendants since September 2018, and remains detained by Defendants as of the date of filing this pleading.
34. Plaintiff Juan Bautista Maldonado Murillo is A.C.M.S.’s father and ORR sponsor. He lives in New Jersey.
35. Plaintiff Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”) is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Washington, DC, with a principal place of business in Silver Spring, Maryland. CLINIC is the largest nationwide network of nonprofit immigration programs, with approximately 341 affiliates in 47 states and the District of Columbia. Through its affiliates, as well as through the BIA Pro Bono Project and the Dilley Pro Bono Project (formerly known as the CARA Pro Bono Project), CLINIC advocates for the just and humane treatment of immigrants through direct representation, pro bono referrals, and engagement with policy makers.
36. Plaintiff Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (“NWIRP”) is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Washington with a principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. NWIRP’s mission is to advance and defend the legal rights of immigrants in Washington State.
7

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 13 of 81 PageID# 1272
Defendants/Habeas Corpus Respondents 37. Defendant Alex Azar is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the department of which ORR is part. Mr. Azar is a legal custodian of the child Plaintiffs and is sued in his official capacity. 38. Defendant Lynn Johnson is the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Administration for Children and Families is the office within HHS that has responsibility for ORR. Ms. Johnson is a legal custodian of the child Plaintiffs and is sued in her official capacity. 39. Defendant Jonathan Hayes is the Acting Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”). ORR is the government entity directly responsible for the detention of the child plaintiffs. Mr. Hayes is a legal custodian of the child Plaintiffs and is sued in his official capacity. 40. Defendant Jallyn Sualog is the Deputy Director of ORR. Ms. Sualog is a legal custodian of the child Plaintiffs and is sued in her official capacity.
Habeas Corpus Respondents Only 41. Respondents Natasha David, Alex Sanchez, Karen Husted, Kristopher Cantu, Catherine Laurie, Yessenia Heath, and Federal Field Specialist for Homestead Fla. are Federal Field Specialists at ORR, and are sued in their official capacity. They are the federal officials who oversee the ORR contracts with the various private and state/county facilities listed herein, at which the above-named child plaintiffs are or were detained, and as such are or were the legal custodians of those child plaintiffs. 42. Respondent Johnitha McNair is the Executive Director of Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center (“NOVA”), and is the warden of that facility. J.E.C.M. was held at NOVA at the time he filed his habeas corpus petition [Dkt. #1] until his release on July 26,
8

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 14 of 81 PageID# 1273
approximately one week after the initial filing of this suit. Ms. McNair was a legal custodian of J.E.C.M. and is sued in her official capacity.
43. Respondent Timothy Smith is the Executive Director of Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center (“SVJC”), and is the warden of that facility, where B.G.S.S. was detained at the time he filed his habeas corpus action [Dkt. #21]. Mr. Smith was a legal custodian of B.G.S.S. and is sued in his official capacity.
44. Respondent Gary L. Jones is the Chief Executive Officer of Youth For Tomorrow (“YFT”), and is the warden of that facility, where R.A.I. and K.T.M were detained at the time they filed their habeas corpus action [Dkt. #21]. Dr. Jones was a legal custodian of R.A.I. and K.T.M. and is sued in his official capacity.
45. Respondent Laurie Anne Spagnola is the President & CEO of the Board of Child Care in Maryland, where J.A.T.L. is currently held. She is a legal custodian of J.A.T.L. and is sued in her official capacity.
46. Respondent Kevin Dinnin is the Executive Director of BCFS, which operates the BCFS International Children’s Center where C.E.C.P. is currently held. He is a legal custodian of C.E.C.P. and is sued in his official capacity.
47. Respondent Karen Lee is the Chief Executive Officer of Pioneer Human Services, which operates the Selma Carson Home where Y.R.R.B. and C.M.M. are currently held. She is a legal custodian of Y.R.R.B. and C.M.M. and is sued in her official capacity.
48. Respondent Melinda Giovengo is the Chief Executive Officer & President of YouthCare, which operates the YouthCare Seattle center where A.M.C.S. is currently held. She is a legal custodian of A.M.C.S. and is sued in her official capacity.
9

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 15 of 81 PageID# 1274
49. Respondent Joyce Capelle is the CEO of Crittenton Services for Children and Families, where A.Y.S.R. is currently held. She is a legal custodian of A.Y.S.R. and is sued in her official capacity.
50. Respondent Gary Palmer is President and CEO of Comprehensive Health Services, which operates ORR’s facility in Homestead, Florida, where M.C.L. and E.A.R.R. are currently held. Mr. Palmer is a legal custodian of M.C.L. and E.A.R.R., and is sued in his official capacity.
BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK The governing legal framework requires ORR to promptly release children to adequate
sponsors, and otherwise act in the best interests of the children in its custody. 51. Each year, thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children (“UACs”) arrive in the United States to escape persecution and harm in foreign countries. In recent years, the U.S. has seen an influx of children from Mexico and Central America fleeing endemic levels of crime and violence that have made those countries extremely dangerous, especially for children and young adults. 52. Government care and custody of UACs is governed by a legal framework consisting primarily of two statutory provisions—§ 279 of Title 6 and § 1232 of Title 8—plus a settlement agreement that is binding on the pertinent federal agencies. In the 1980s and 1990s, immigrant children who arrived in the U.S. were routinely locked up for months in unsafe and unsanitary jail cells in remote facilities across the country. These conditions prompted a federal lawsuit, Flores v. Reno, which resulted in a 1997 consent decree (the “Flores Agreement”) binding on DHS and ORR, still effective today, that sets national standards for the detention, release, and treatment of immigrant children in government custody.
10

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 16 of 81 PageID# 1275
53. In addition to setting certain minimal detention standards, Flores guarantees that children shall be released “without unnecessary delay” while they await their immigration status and requires the Government to undertake “prompt and continuous efforts” towards family reunification. As the Fourth Circuit explained, “[t]he Flores Agreement spells out a general policy favoring less restrictive placements of alien children (rather than more restrictive ones) and their release (rather than detention).” D.B. v. Cardall, 826 F.3d 721, 732 (4th Cir. 2016). Under the Agreement, “[U]nless detention is necessary to ensure a child’s safety or his appearance in immigration court, he must be released without unnecessary delay, preferably to a parent or legal guardian.” Id. (citing Flores Agreement ¶ 14) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). The Flores consent decree also gives these children the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.3
54. In 2002, Congress took further action to protect this vulnerable population when it passed the Homeland Security Act (“HSA”) and transferred the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant children from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, housed within the Department of Health and Human Services. ORR is not a security agency; its mission is to “incorporate[e] child welfare values” into the care and placement of unaccompanied immigrant children. The Flores Agreement is binding on all successor agencies to the INS, including ORR.4
3 The Flores bond hearing does not empower an immigration judge to order a child’s release from ORR custody or even to review the reunification process. It merely permits the immigration judge to determine whether a child is a danger to the community, thus substantiating or contradicting ORR’s claims that it continues to have authority to detain a child. See Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 863, 867-69 (9th Cir. 2017).
4 ORR recognizes its continuing obligations under the Flores Agreement. See Exh. 1 at § Sec. 3.3 (outlining obligations imposed by Flores Agreement on ORR care provider facilities).
11

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 17 of 81 PageID# 1276
55. Building on Flores and the provisions of the HSA regarding immigrant children, Congress further passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“TVPRA”), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1232, which grants legal protections to children in ORR custody and tasks the agency with ensuring they are “promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.” Senator Diane Feinstein, a sponsor of the bill that would become the TVPRA, explained that the legislation was intended to redress situations like one she had personally witnessed, where an unaccompanied child remained in custody for nine months after her initial detention. Congress enacted the TVPRA specifically to facilitate the speedy release and minimally restrictive placement of immigrant children.
56. As the Fourth Circuit observed, the TVPRA contained various provisions that mirror the Flores Agreement’s focus on the welfare of the child. “[T]he Office shall promptly place a UAC in the least restrictive setting that is in the UAC’s best interest, subject to the need to ensure the UAC’s safety and timely appearance at immigration hearings.” Cardall, 826 F.3d at 733 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A)). As important, “[t]he Office shall not place a UAC in a secure facility [e.g., NOVA] absent a determination that the UAC poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense.” Id.
ORR’s current reunification policies and practices do not work to promptly release children to adequate sponsors, and violate the Due Process rights of children and their sponsors. 57. ORR has promulgated but not yet enacted regulations under the TVPRA.5 The
only public guidance on ORR’s detention and release procedures is a guide that has existed for at least a decade but was not published online until 2015. See Exh. 1 hereto (ORR Policy Guide). ORR frequently edits and amends this guide without any explanation or announcement of the
5 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children,” 83 Fed. Reg. 45486 (Sept. 7, 2018).
12

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 18 of 81 PageID# 1277
changes. ORR also regularly advises its staff and service providers of nonpublic changes to this guide by email or phone. The ORR Policy Guide contains the procedures that control more than 10,000 children in ORR custody nationwide.
58. Reviewing ORR’s placement practices in 2016, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs found that ORR had “failed to adopt and maintain a regularized, transparent body of policies and procedures concerning the placement of UACs” and castigated the agency for what it called “[s]etting governmental policy on the fly” in a manner “inconsistent with the accountability and transparency that should be expected of every administrative agency.”6
59. ORR prioritizes placement with sponsors as follows: Category 1 sponsors are parents or legal guardians; Category 2 sponsors are immediate relatives, including brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, first cousins, and step-parents; Category 3 sponsors are all other adults, including relatives or unrelated adults like family friends. See Exh. 1 (ORR Policy Guide) at § 2.2.1.
60. ORR allows itself to deny a child’s release to a parent or legal guardian where ORR itself determines that “[t]here is substantial evidence that the child would be at risk of harm if released to the parent or legal guardian” without requiring termination of parental rights or even a petition before a juvenile or family court. Id.
6 United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Staff Report, “Protecting Unaccompanied Alien Children from Trafficking and Other Abuses: The Role of the Office of Refugee Resettlement,” January 28, 2016, at p.51, available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Majority%20&%20Minority %20Staff%20Report%20-%20Protecting%20Unaccompanied%20Alien%20Children%20from %20Trafficking%20and%20Other%20Abuses%202016-01-282.pdf.
13

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 19 of 81 PageID# 1278
61. Under current policy, once a “qualifying” custodian or sponsor has been identified, he or she must complete several forms—including a broad authorization for release of information and a family reunification application—and provide documentation of the identity of the child, the sponsor’s identity and address, his or her relationship to the child, and “evidence verifying the identity of all adults residing with the sponsor and all adult care givers identified in a sponsor care plan.” Notably, ORR requires potential sponsors to identify all adults in the household and an alternative caregiver who is able to provide care in the event the original sponsor is unavailable. See Exh. 1. at § 2.2.4.
62. If a sponsor is able to provide all the information required by ORR, including biographical and biometric information for the household adults and alternate care givers identified in the sponsor application, an ORR care provider and a nongovernmental third-party reviewer, called a “case coordinator,” may “conclude[] that the release is safe and the sponsor can care for the physical and mental well-being of the child;” the care provider then “makes a recommendation for release” to the ORR Federal Field Specialist (FFS), an individual who acts as the local ORR liaison with the facility. The FFS then either approves or denies release, or requests more information. See Exh. 1. at § 2.7.
63. ORR’s family reunification process is riddled with due process violations. Government contractors are the primary gatekeepers for a sponsor’s ability to even complete a reunification application, before a sponsor receives any official ORR decision. These third party contractors have nearly unfettered power to permit sponsorship applications to go forward, to deny sponsorship as not being viable before the application has been completed (or even begun), to require a time-consuming home study of the sponsor, and to forward the application for final decision to supervisors. Exh. 1 at §§ 2.3.3, 2.3.4. In wielding this power, upon information and
14

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 20 of 81 PageID# 1279
belief, they are subjected to pressures from the current administration and directives from ORR administrators that are not necessarily contained in the ORR Policy Guide. At the same time, they are charged with directly assisting sponsors in completing the application in the first place, and describe themselves to the sponsors as their advocates. Exh. 1 at § 2.2.3.
64. In the stages prior to an elusive final decision on a sponsor’s application, there is little or no notice as to why a sponsor may be rejected, what steps remain and what requirements will ultimately complete the reunification application, and no recourse to challenge either specific requirements or a case manager’s subjective determination that a sponsor is not viable. In fact, ORR grants itself discretion to raise additional barriers to sponsorship, prolonging children’s detention by requiring additional documentation and reunification steps prior to calling the application complete. See Exh. 1 at § 2.2.4 (“ORR may in its discretion require potential sponsors to submit additional documentation beyond the minimums specified below”). These policies prolong children’s time in ORR custody and raise serious due process concerns for those children and for their family members trying to reunify with them.
65. When ORR transfers a minor from one detention center to another—which it does frequently, without prior notice or opportunity to be heard, and in its sole discretion—the reunification process usually has to start over from the beginning, even without any change in sponsor, which adds considerable delays. In addition, even when sponsors have already been previously vetted, they have to go through the entire vetting process all over again from the beginning, which adds considerable delays. If a sponsor temporarily withdraws from the sponsorship process, they often have to start the reunification process over from the beginning, which adds considerable delays. Indeed, sometimes the mere passage of time during the
15

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 21 of 81 PageID# 1280
sponsorship process due to ORR’s delays causes ORR to tell a sponsor that their fingerprints are “stale” and must be re-taken and re-processed, adding considerable delays.
66. U.S. District Courts for both the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia have admonished ORR that its reunification process violates the Due Process Clause. See Beltran v. Cardall, 222 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2016) (holding that ORR’s family reunification procedures did not provide the child petitioner or his mother due process of law); Santos v. Smith, 260 F. Supp. 3d 598 (W.D. Va. 2017) (holding that ORR’s family reunification procedures caused even more egregious violations of the child petitioner’s and his mother’s due process rights than had occurred in Beltran).7 Yet ORR has failed to develop sufficient processes to protect its child wards or their sponsors’ interests, and instead has made the reunification process more cumbersome and lengthy.
67. Specifically, four of ORR’s written policies, taken together, form an opaque, impenetrable process in which sponsors and children have little sense of what will be required of them to achieve reunification, let alone any way to challenge those requirements or early peremptory decisions about sponsor viability. The policies establish an unbridled level of discretion, allowing front-line government contractors to cut the reunification process short or
7 Although the sponsors in Beltran and Santos were both the mothers of the petitioners, the liberty interest in family unity is not limited to the nuclear or even biological family. See Smith v. Org of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 843 (1977) (“biological relationships are not [the] exclusive determina[nt] of the existence of a family”). Indeed, courts have given great weight to the family unity interests between more distantly related relatives, including siblings, grandparents, and aunts and sisters. See Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. at 496-506 (affirming the constitutional conception of family between a grandmother and her grandsons); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (affirming a constitutionally recognized family relationship between an aunt and her niece); Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1982) (upholding the family unity interests of a half-sister). Likewise, children’s liberty interest in being free from government detention does not depend on their would-be sponsors also being their parents.
16

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 22 of 81 PageID# 1281
stop it all together before any official grant or denial of reunification with a sponsor.
Additionally, the case manager must play the role of the prosecutor and judge for each potential
sponsor, even while telling sponsors they are acting as their advocates. The four ORR written
policies, in particular, lack any constitutionally sufficient process and enshrine a process nearly
identical to (or worse than) the process that the court in Santos rejected, see Exh. 1:
• Section 2.2.3 of the ORR Guide establishes that the “care provider” or case manager helps the sponsor complete the application and outlines what must be sent to the sponsor to complete for a sponsorship application. It establishes the case manager as the gate keeper of the reunification process.
• Section 2.2.4 of the ORR Guide sets forth the required documentation for potential sponsors and other adults in the household, while simultaneously granting ORR itself unfettered discretion to require that sponsors provide additional information and take additional steps in the reunification process, without any indication as to the basis or timing of these additional requirements.
• Section 2.4.1 sets out supposed criteria for assessing a sponsor’s viability, to be evaluated by the case manager, but does not establish any standards to meet any of the criteria or the weight given to each of the criteria. It also establishes highly subjective criteria and improperly places additional burden on would-be sponsors.
• Section 2.4.2 sets out requirements for mandatory home studies, and also grants broad discretion to the government-contracted case manager and case coordinator to recommend “discretionary” home studies. Upon information and belief, this section does not include the internal policy of requiring home studies for all UACs held in a secure detention center. And although this section suggests that the case managers and case coordinators independently recommend additional home studies, upon information and belief, ORR administrators have begun to require case managers to recommend home studies in far more cases, with little or no justifying concerns about a sponsor’s ability to care for a UAC. Home studies significantly slow the release process and force potential sponsors to submit to an invasive procedure in which they must open up their homes and their families, including minor children, to a stranger.
68. Taken together, these policies establish an opaque and overly burdensome
reunification process, relying on the discretion of government-contracted case managers and
subject to manipulation by the whims and directives of ORR administrators before any “official”
reunification decisions are made. This means that for many would-be and current sponsors, ORR
17

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 23 of 81 PageID# 1282
does not provide notice as to the reason that their sponsorship was or may be rejected, nor does it require case managers to divulge the basis for demanding that sponsors meet additional requirements. Further, the present framework does not provide sponsors with the ability to challenge a case manager’s determination of viability. The current framework deters sponsors from raising concerns regarding any additional requirements or non-viability decisions with the case manager, because the case manager is also charged with helping the sponsor complete the application, and any challenge to the case manager’s authority or decision-making power may result in retaliation during the process of assessing the viability of the sponsor’s application. For detained children, this means many more weeks or months in detention, while the case manager works with the sponsor to complete a process with no definitive end and no definitive number of steps or requirements. The process does not accord the children or their sponsors a hearing or other meaningful notice or opportunity to be heard, nor is there any procedure establishing such an opportunity for them. Contra, e.g., 22 Va. Admin. Code §§ 40-201-10 et seq. (setting out detailed criteria and strict timelines for foster care placements in Virginia).
69. Under the above-mentioned policies, ORR does not sufficiently make the sponsors “aware of . . .the evidence or factual findings upon which ORR relied in withholding [the child petitioners] from [their sponsors’] care and custody,” which “opaque procedure deprive[s] Petitioner of any opportunity to contest ORR’s findings, and thus any meaningful opportunity to alter its conclusions.” Beltran, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 485.
70. Both the Beltran and Santos courts found that ORR’s procedures “created a significant risk that [sponsors and children] would be erroneously deprived of their right to family integrity” and that additional procedural safeguards of the nature routinely employed where government interferes with fundamental rights could have mitigated the risk. Beltran, 222
18

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 24 of 81 PageID# 1283
F. Supp. 3d at 488; see also Santos, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 614 (“had better or more process been given especially as to the delay and the burden being on Ms. Santos to initiate and justify reunification, rather than the default rule being otherwise, the outcome could have been different”). The likely risk of erroneous deprivation of the most fundamental liberty interests is thus significantly higher, and unacceptable, under these circumstances.
71. Further, ORR’s actions continue to improperly place the burden onto potential sponsors to challenge ORR’s decision and, if unable to obtain relief from ORR, to initiate court proceedings. “At no point [is] the onus on ORR to justify its deprivation of Petitioner’s fundamental [familial] rights.” Id. Beltran and Santos both concluded that “having determined that it would deprive [mother] and [child] of their fundamental right to family integrity, ORR could not adopt for itself an attitude of ‘if you don’t like it, sue.’” Beltran, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 485; see also Santos, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 613; see also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 658 (1972) (procedures that “insist[] on presuming rather than proving” are insufficient under the Due Process Clause). But that is precisely what ORR policies and practices require plaintiffs to do.
72. In May 2017, likely as a result of the opinion in the Santos case, ORR’s online policy guide was amended to provide for the possibility of an “appeal” to the Assistant Secretary of ORR if a reunification request is denied. But this process—at which sponsors have no right to call witnesses, includes no requirement of a reasoned decision, and uses a politically appointed official as an adjudicator—is available only once a final decision is rendered on a reunification request. Setting aside the other fatal procedural flaws, this appeal process also fails because, given current ORR procedures and practices, very few cases will reach ripeness, given the indefinite delays that sponsors face during the application process, set forth above.
19

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 25 of 81 PageID# 1284
73. For children, the devastating effect of these delays in release and reunification can include depression, deterioration in mental health, and behavioral problems associated with prolonged detention. Children can feel a sense of hopelessness stemming from their indefinite detention, particularly once they know that the ORR staff members or field professionals with whom they have had contact continually provide positive recommendations on their performance and progress, and yet they remain detained in a highly restrictive environment. Discouragement becomes despair, and in some cases, children respond by misbehaving in ways that cause them to face progressively more restrictions on their movement in custody, exacerbating their already significant depression and hopelessness. In other cases, children who fear persecution in their home countries nonetheless opt to accept removal and return there, rather than endure further detention which for all intents and purposes resembles imprisonment in their view.
74. Another effect of prolonged detention, and one that is known to ORR, is that when children detained in ORR’s custody reach their 18th birthday, ORR no longer considers them subject to its detention and custody. 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2)(B). The TVPRA provides that most of these children should generally be released upon turning 18. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B). In fact, however, most of the children are sent to ICE custody instead. See Ramirez v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 310 F. Supp. 3d 7, 30 (D.D.C. 2018). As one immigration attorney described the regular practice at ORR’s current largest detention center nationwide, in Homestead, Fla., “When they turn 18, it’s basically, ‘Happy birthday,’ and then they slap on handcuffs and take them off to adult detention centers.”8
8 Tim Elfrink, “ICE Handcuffs Immigrant Kids on Their 18th Birthdays, Drags Them to Jail,” Aug. 23, 2018, Miami New Times, available at https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/ice-handcuffs-immigrants-on-18th-birthday-athomestead-childrens-center-sends-them-to-jail-10651093.
20

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 26 of 81 PageID# 1285
ORR’s fingerprint-sharing agreement with ICE frustrates its mission of promptly releasing children to adequate sponsors, was designed for an improper purpose, and is not in the best
interests of the children in ORR’s custody. 75. Making matters worse, ORR has agreed to allow one aspect of its reunification process, namely the background vetting of potential sponsors, to be used towards a purpose for which it was never intended: civil immigration enforcement against the very sponsors who are willing to open their homes to enable children to leave government custody. 76. Upon information and belief, ORR has long been aware that the vast majority of children in its care came to the United States intending to unite or reunite with family members who are also immigrants; that these family members are generally the best sponsors for the children; and that a disproportionately large number of these family members lack any legal status in the United States, like the children themselves. 77. For many years, ORR has routinely collected fingerprint information of nonparent sponsors, in order to run criminal background checks on them.9 ORR did not routinely fingerprint sponsors who were the parents of the children they hoped to sponsor unless some specific ‘red flag’ appeared to make it necessary; nor did they routinely fingerprint household members of sponsors unless some specific ‘red flag’ appeared to make it necessary. Most importantly, any fingerprints that ORR collected were not shared with immigration enforcement agencies. 78. In late 2017, seeking to reduce the number of immigrants who crossed the Mexico-United States border, Trump administration immigration policy advisers drafted a
9 ORR also conducts a number of other background checks on potential sponsors and their household members using names and other forms of identity verification, that do not require fingerprints to run. See Exh. 1 (ORR Guide) at § 2.5.1.
21

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 27 of 81 PageID# 1286
memorandum containing a number of “Policy Options to Respond to Border Surge of Illegal Immigration.”10 The memorandum and the comments thereto set forth a strategy whereby immigrant children and families would be made to suffer, that suffering would be publicized in the media, and this would deter future immigrant families from crossing the border. One of the policy proposals set forth in the memorandum was the now-infamous family separation policy, see Ms. L. v. ICE, 310 F.Supp.3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2018). Another policy proposed in the same memorandum as family separation was described as an “MOU with HHS on Requirements for Releasing UACs.” The policy proposal as relevant to ORR stated, in full:
79. The purpose of the proposed MOU with HHS was not child welfare, or better vetting of sponsors. Rather, the purpose was to “place [sponsors] into removal proceedings as appropriate” in order to “result in a deterrent impact on ‘sponsors’ who may be involved with smuggling children into the United States.” Id. at p.2. The unnamed author of the memorandum recognized that as a direct result of this policy proposal, “sponsors may not take custody of their
10 Available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5688664-Merkleydocs2.html, and attached hereto as Exh. 5.
22

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 28 of 81 PageID# 1287
children in HHS facilities, requiring HHS to keep UACs in custody longer.” Id. An unnamed reviewer of this memorandum agreed with the author’s recommendation to keep children detained in HHS facilities for longer, commenting, “If [the MOA] could get finalized and implemented soon, it would have a tremendous deterrent effect.” Id.
80. The memorandum attached hereto as Exh. 5 was leaked to Sen. Jeff Merkley by a whistleblower, and was made available to the public on the evening of January 17, 2019.11
81. As proposed in the memorandum, so implemented by Defendants: on April 13, 2018, ORR signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), agreeing to vastly expand the information collected from sponsors and all of their household members, and to share that information among the agencies. See Exh. 2 (Memorandum of Agreement). The MOA addresses the collection and sharing of sponsor, household member, and caregiver information through the sponsorship application process. Id. Hiding its true purpose of deterring immigration and adopting the pretext of protecting child welfare, the MOA outlined vastly expanded information collection not just from potential sponsors, but from every adult household member and a required alternate caregiver. Id. at Sec. 5(B) (“ORR will provide ICE with the name, date of birth, address, fingerprints . . . and any available identification documents or biographic information regarding the potential sponsor and all adult members of the potential sponsor’s household”). ORR incorporated this information collection and sharing policy into various sections of its ORR Policy Guide.
11 See Julia Ainsley, “Trump admin weighed targeting migrant families, speeding up deportation of children,” Jan. 17, 2019, NBC News, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-weighed-targeting-migrantfamilies-speeding-deportation-children-n958811?fbclid=IwAR3Et5WKKmN3ymFnp_sgWc9bOg6gpkAdLiFu-H4TXxOwLzgfG1xa9o5KpQ.
23

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 29 of 81 PageID# 1288
82. While the publicly stated purpose of this MOA was for ORR to obtain more
information about would-be sponsors and their household members and thereby make better-
informed placement decisions, the memorandum attached hereto as Exh. 5 demonstrates that the
primary intent and purpose of the MOA was to assist ICE in enforcing immigration laws against
sponsors and their household members—a purpose that not only has no relationship to ORR’s
mission, but actually runs contrary to ORR’s statutory obligation to act in the best interests of the
children in its care. (When ICE arrests a would-be sponsor of an immigrant child, that immigrant
child obviously cannot be released to the sponsor; when ICE arrests the sponsor of a recently
released immigrant child, that sponsor is prevented from carrying out the terms of his
sponsorship agreement with ORR, and the child will be plunged into instability and often
poverty.)12
12 For example, one 17-year-old Guatemalan child named E.A.X. came to the United States on July 20, 2018 with his two younger brothers and were detained by Defendants at a 300bed shelter in Arizona. Their father, who lived in Nebraska with his wife and their son, began the sponsorship process for his three older boys. After a disciplinary incident, E.A.X. was separated from his brothers and transferred to a staff-secure facility in northern California.
On or around September 4, 2018, E.A.X.’s father submitted his fingerprints to ORR as part of the reunification process. Just three days later, E.A.X.’s father got in his car to go to work. A few blocks from his home, he was pulled over by ICE agents, arrested, and quickly deported to Guatemala. After E.A.X. found out that his father had been deported as a result of submitting fingerprints to sponsor him, E.A.X. felt guilt-ridden and devastated.
The brothers’ stepmother continued the sponsorship process in her husband’s place. E.A.X.’s brothers were released to her, but because E.A.X is in a higher security facility than his brothers, he has not been released. As a result of his prolonged detention, the restrictive nature of the staff-secure facility, the separation from his brothers, the release of his brothers, and the deportation of his father, E.A.X.’s behavior became more erratic. The number of minor incidents E.A.X. was involved in increased, further decreasing his chances of release to his stepmother.
Finally, in November of 2018, after E.A.X. had been in detention for four months, he learned that his stepmother was considering withdrawing from the sponsorship process due to the burdensome policies challenged in this lawsuit. E.A.X.’s emotional and psychological condition
24

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 30 of 81 PageID# 1289
83. Indeed, in just the first four months of the MOA’s operation, ICE used the MOA and the information obtained thereby to carry out civil immigration arrests of 170 sponsors.13 The majority of whom (109) did not have a criminal record. Of the sixty-one (61) who had a criminal record, most were for charges involving nonviolent and other offenses that would generally be considered to have no bearing on an individual’s fitness to sponsor a child. Id.
84. ORR staff and leadership had previously studied and deliberated the pros and cons of putting into place a policy of this nature, but concluded that the marginal increase in useful information would be minimal, and would be vastly outweighed by the predictable negative consequences including a drastic reduction in the number of willing sponsors and a corresponding dramatic increase in the average length of detention of children in ORR custody and number of children detained, and therefore concluded that such a policy would not be in the best interests of the children in ORR’s custody. Upon information and belief, when ORR decided to enter into the ICE fingerprint-sharing MOA in April 2018, ORR did not revisit these deliberations and this conclusion, but instead simply ignored them.
85. Consequently, as an entirely predictable result of this ICE fingerprint-sharing policy (indeed, the result that was anticipated and intended by the unnamed drafter of the memorandum attached hereto as Exh. 5), countless would-be sponsors withdrew from the
further deteriorated, and he attempted suicide. When the paramedics arrived, E.A.X. believed they were there to kill him. He was hospitalized for several days.
Instead of working to release E.A.X. to a sponsor as quickly as possible, or alternatively place him in a facility where his mental health needs could be adequately met, ORR transferred E.A.X. to the Yolo County Detention Facility, its most secure and jail-like detention facility in the United States, where his freedoms are even further curtailed, and he is surrounded by other children who have similar difficulties adjusting to prolonged detention.
13 Daniella Silva, “ICE arrested 170 immigrants seeking to sponsor migrant children,” Dec. 11, 2018, NBC News, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ice-arrested-170immigrants-seeking-sponsor-migrant-children-n946621.
25

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 31 of 81 PageID# 1290
sponsorship process or declined to step forward to sponsor detained immigrant children, rather than participate in a fingerprint-sharing process that was designed to enable ICE to arrest them. Even more sponsors who were willing to come forward were nonetheless stymied when their household members refused to have their fingerprints sent to ICE to be used against them. In addition, the fingerprinting system became overwhelmed with months-long delays added on to each release decision as sponsors waited many weeks for a fingerprinting appointment, and then waited many weeks more for the results to come back. As a result, reunifications ground to a near-halt, and the population of children detained by ORR ballooned from less than 3,000 just a year and a half earlier to nearly 15,000 children, a never-before-seen record.14 More than onethird of those children were detained at mega-facilities with over 1,000 children each, a far cry from the level of individualized attention implied by the concept of “shelter-level care.” Id.
86. ORR was unable to accommodate all of those children within its existing network of shelters, and was forced to erect temporary facilities with much more restrictive conditions.15 The most infamous of these facilities was a fenced-in tent city in the middle of the desert, just steps from the Rio Grande river in Tornillo, Texas, in which children were warehoused in conditions reminiscent of the World War II-era Japanese internment camp at Manzanar,16 with
14 Andres Leighton, “Nearly 15,000 migrant children in federal custody jammed into crowded shelters,” Dec. 19, 2018, Associated Press, available at https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/19/nearly-15000-migrant-children-in-federal-custody-jammedinto-crowded-shelters.html.
15 Julián Aguilar, “Operator of migrant facility in Tornillo says it might not stay open past July 13 when contract expires,” June 25, 2018, The Texas Tribune, available at https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/25/operator-migrant-facility-tornillo-says-it-might-notstay-open-past-ju/.
16 Algernon D’Ammassa, “Tornillo tent city for children could become Trump's Manzanar,” Oct. 5, 2018, Las Cruces Sun-News, available at https://www.lcsun-
26

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 32 of 81 PageID# 1291
woefully insufficient educational or psychological programming available to them.17 The
situation of these children was so dire that on December 17, 2018, the operator of the Tornillo
tent city camp sent a letter to ORR advising that they would no longer accept more detained
children at the facility: “We as an organization finally drew the line,” Defendant Kevin Dinnin,
the Executive Director of the organization running the Tornillo detention facility, would later explain. “You can’t keep taking children in and not releasing them.”18
87. Just as predictably, the mandatory fingerprinting and information-sharing of
sponsors’ household members turned out not to be necessary or even helpful: Defendant Johnson
would later state that the policy did not “add[] anything to the protection and safety of the children.”19
88. The MOA significantly impacted the rights and legal status of thousands of
children in ORR custody, and the potential sponsors, household members, and caregivers of
those children. Further, like the ORR Guide, ORR and ICE entered into this MOA and carried
out its policies and procedures without providing the public and interested parties any notice or
opportunity to comment on the new rules.
news.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/10/05/tornillo-tent-city-children-could-become-donaldtrump-manzanar-family-case-management-immigration/1518678002/.
17 Nomaan Merchant, “Beto O’Rourke says immigrant minors not receiving education in Tornillo facility,” Oct. 3, 2018, Associated Press, available at https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/beto-orourke-says-immigrant-minors-not-receiving-education-intornillo-facility.
18 Emily Green, “Head of controversial tent city says the Trump administration pressured him to detain more young migrants,” Jan. 11, 2019, Vice News, available at https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kzvmg3/head-of-controversial-tent-city-says-the-trumpadministration-pressured-him-to-detain-more-young-migrants.
19 John Burnett, “Several Thousand Migrant Children In U.S. Custody Could Be Released Before Christmas,” Dec. 18, 2018, National Public Radio, available at https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/ 677894942/several-thousand-migrant-children-in-u-s-custodycould-be-released-before-christ.
27

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 33 of 81 PageID# 1292
89. The only rationale for collecting immigration status information provided by ORR in the ORR Guide is listed in Sec. 2.6 of that guide. See Exh. 1. That section of the guide states, “ORR does not disqualify potential sponsors on the basis of their immigration status. ORR does seek immigration status information, but this is used to determine if a sponsor care plan will be needed if the sponsor needs to leave the United States; it is not used as a reason to deny a family reunification application.” Id. There was no rationale provided regarding seeking or sharing information about household members’ immigration status, which has no bearing on whether the sponsor would need to leave the United States; nor is there any rationale provided regarding sharing sponsors’ address information with ICE or otherwise facilitating ICE immigration enforcement against sponsors.
90. DHS and HHS subsequently published notices in the Federal Register. HHS announced in its notice, however, that the agency had already adopted and implemented these changes to their policies, but nonetheless invited public comment. In a notice published on May 11, 2018 (“May 11 notice”), ORR “requests the use of emergency processing procedures . . . to expand the scope of . . . information collection” conducted as part of the reunification process. 83 Fed. Reg. 22490. In the May 11 notice, ORR states that “the information collection allows ORR to obtain biometric and biographical information from sponsors, adult members of their household, and adult care givers identified in a sponsor care plan.” Id. Although comment was not due on this notice until July 10, 2018, ORR had clearly begun implementation of the changes to the information collection process, stating that “the instruments used in this submission [were] available for use by mid-May 2018,” the same date that the notice was published. Id.
91. DHS also published a notice on May 8, 2018, to update its System of Records to implement the MOA, stating that one purpose of the system is “[t]o screen individuals to verify
28

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 34 of 81 PageID# 1293
or ascertain citizenship or immigration status and immigration history, and criminal history to
inform determinations regarding sponsorship of unaccompanied alien children . . . and to identify and arrest those who may be subject to removal.” 83 Fed. Reg. 20846.
92. ORR made vast and drastic changes to the information it collects, and more
importantly, the manner in which it uses and shares that information. It did so unilaterally,
without any public input or any apparent thought or consideration to the way these new rules would impact its own mission: to protect these children’s best interest, and promptly reunify
them with sponsors in the least restrictive environment possible.
93. Several public groups nonetheless submitted comments to both DHS and HHS denouncing the new “proposed” regulations as contrary to law and to the mission of ORR.20
Upon information and belief, based upon internal stakeholder meetings, DHS had no plan or
intention of providing information to ORR beyond what ORR was already able to obtain on its own. The MOA and accompanying procedures were designed purely as an extension of DHS’s
law enforcement authority in order to use children in ORR custody as bait to vastly expand the
20 See, e.g., Legal Aid Justice Center, Memo Re: HHS ACF Sponsorship Review Procedures, available at, https://www.justice4all.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/LAJC_Comments-on-OMB-No-0970-0278-Sponsorship-ReviewProcedures-002.pdf; National Immigrant Justice Center, Memo Re: HHS ACF Notice of Sponsorship Review Procedures, available at http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/commentaryitem/documents/201807/NIJC%20Comment%20on%20HHS%20revisions%20to%20UC%20sponsor%20forms.pdf; National Immigrant Justice Center, Memo Re: DHS Notice of Modified System of Records, available at, https://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/commentaryitem/documents/2018-06/NIJC%20Comments%20on%20DHS-20180013%20System%20of%20Records%20Notice.pdf; American Civil Liberties Union, Memo Re: DHS Notice of Modified System of Records, available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2018.06.07_aclu_comments_dhs_system _of_records_notice_dkt._2018-0013-0001.pdf.
29

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 35 of 81 PageID# 1294
reach of ICE enforcement. The result of ORR being unable to identify closely related sponsors for the children in its care, as a result of the sharing of sponsor information with ICE, and any subsequent enforcement action by DHS against a child’s sponsor or the other adults in that sponsor’s home, places children at significantly greater risk of being trafficked, smuggled, or otherwise abused.21
94. ORR’s online guide provides little to no rationale for any given policy change that has occurred over the past year and a half. ORR’s online guide and MOA specifically give only a cursory and empty explanation for the new requirements. Upon information and belief, the additional criminal background checks provided for in the Procedures merely duplicate those that ORR currently performs. See Exh. 1 at § 2.5.1. According to the MOA, ORR will continue to be responsible for criminal history checks on the national, state, and local level. See Exh. 2. Duplicative background checks serve only to waste time and resources of two already overburdened agencies. This practice is both arbitrary and capricious, and on information and belief, motivated solely by factors divorced from carrying out the mandate of the statute and case law governing detention and release of UACs by ORR.
95. In recognition that the policy had been a failure, on December 18, 2018—just one day after the head of the Tornillo tent city detention facility advised ORR that he would no longer accept any more child detainees—ORR revised its policy: no longer would sponsors’ household members be fingerprinted in all cases. However, the new policy requiring fingerprinting of all parent sponsors was not changed; the sharing of sponsors’ fingerprints with ICE for the explicit purpose of immigration enforcement against them was not changed; and the fingerprinting of all household members would still be required in various cases, including any
21 See generally Human Trafficking Legal Center, Amicus Curiae Brief [Dkt. #45].
30

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 36 of 81 PageID# 1295
case where a home study was ordered for any reason whatsoever (with no meaningful standards limiting when a home study may be required). See Exh. 1 at §§ 2.5, 2.5.1. These changes were expected to result in the immediate release of a few thousand children, but would leave the population of detained immigrant children at over 10,000, well more than double what it was when the MOA first went into effect.
96. By means of a memorandum from Defendant Sualog to Defendants Hayes and Johnson, ORR recognized that the MOA and the policies set forth therein had not yielded any additional information about potential sponsors that was not otherwise available under the prior policy. See Exh. 3 (Memorandum from Jallyn Sualog, Dec. 18, 2018) at p.1. ORR also recognized that the MOA and the policies set forth therein were responsible for an increase in the median length of custody that presented a risk of harm to children. Id. The memorandum recognized that in six months, in not one single case, had the ICE fingerprint-sharing policy identified a new child welfare risk, id. at p.3; but that it was responsible for the median length of detention increasing to 90 days, id. at p.4. ORR considers it best practices to release a child within 30 days, and recognizes that children may suffer negative child welfare consequences after 60 days. Id. at pp.3-4.
97. The December 18 Suallog memorandum therefore recommended that the mandatory fingerprinting of sponsors’ household members be terminated, a recommendation that Defendant Hayes accepted. Id. at p.4.
98. But even though the December 18 Suallog memorandum found that children suffer negative child welfare consequences as a result of prolonged detention in ORR’s care, and that the ICE fingerprint-sharing MOA was resulting in prolonged detention, the December 18 Suallog memorandum did not recommend the termination of the MOA or an end to fingerprint
31

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 37 of 81 PageID# 1296
sharing with ICE. Id. To the contrary, the memorandum recommended that ORR continue fingerprinting all categories of sponsors, and continue sharing those fingerprints with ICE. The purported reason for this is to verify the identity of the sponsor. Id. But the memorandum undercut this reasoning by allowing ORR staff the discretion to release a child to a sponsor even before the fingerprint results came back, if ORR was otherwise able to confirm the sponsor’s identity. Id. In other words, ORR would continue to send all sponsors’ fingerprints to ICE, placing them at risk of ICE arrest, even where other records or forms of identification were sufficient to accomplish the only remaining justification for the fingerprint-sharing, namely verifying the identity of the sponsors.
99. The December 18 Suallog memorandum states, “The ORR field staff[] has informed me that biometric ICE background checks of all categories of sponsors are helpful for suitability analyses because they confirm the sponsor’s identify.” Id. at p.3. But the memorandum then proceeds to entirely undercut this justification by allowing ORR to release a child to a Category 1 or 2 sponsor before the biometric ICE background check even comes back, where the sponsor can otherwise confirm their identity. Furthermore, the memorandum makes no effort to balance or weigh the purported benefit of further confirmation of the sponsor’s identity against the real and demonstrated harm to children caused by prolonged detention as detailed in the same memorandum. See also Exh. 4 (ORR Frequently Asked Questions guide) (listing only two reasons for the continuation of the ICE fingerprint sharing policy: identity verification of sponsors, and determining the immigration status of sponsors to determine whether a backup care plan might be required should the primary sponsor leave the United States).
32

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 38 of 81 PageID# 1297
FACTS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFFS J.E.C.M. and his sponsor Jose Jimenez Saravia 100. J.E.C.M. is a 14-year-old citizen of Honduras who came to the U.S. in February 2018 accompanied by a friend. He fled Honduras to escape persecution, including threats to his own life. 101. J.E.C.M. has known and been close with his brother-in-law Jose Jimenez Saravia since he was a toddler. He spoke with his sister and brother-in-law by phone on a regular basis when he was living in Honduras, every week or every other week. They often sent money to support him in Honduras so that he could attend school. 102. J.E.C.M. has never been arrested for or charged with a crime. Prior to coming to the United States at the age of 13, he went to school and mostly stayed in his home with his family out of fear of violence. 103. J.E.C.M. fled Honduras in at the end of December 2017. J.E.C.M. arrived in the U.S. at the end of February 2018, and was apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol. He was placed in an unaccompanied children’s shelter in San Diego, California operated by Southwest Key Programs. 104. On March 9, 2018, J.E.C.M. was transferred to Selma Carson Home in Fife, Washington, a staff secure facility near Tacoma. He was transferred to the staff secure facility because he had been labeled as an escape risk by his clinician based on his confiding in his clinician that he did not want to be in the shelter and wanted to be with his family instead. 105. J.E.C.M.’s case manager prepared an ORR Release Notification on April 5, 2018 stating “ORR has determined that the below Juvenile Respondent should be released to a sponsor,” and listed J.E.C.M.’s brother-in-law, Mr. Jimenez Saravia, as the custodian. However, J.E.C.M. was not released to Mr. Jimenez Saravia. Instead, J.E.C.M. remained in ORR custody
33

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 39 of 81 PageID# 1298
at Selma Carson Home until about April 19, 2018, when he was transferred to secure detention at the Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center (“NOVA”) in Alexandria, Virginia.
106. J.E.C.M. was officially transferred to NOVA on April 19, 2018 and remained there until July 26, 2018, a week after this action was initially filed with this court. For the last three months of his detention, he was detained in this high security facility (i.e., most restrictive) in Northern Virginia. The conditions of the high security NOVA facility severely limited J.E.C.M.’s movement within the facility, and his time to socially interact, play, and learn with his peers or on his own. And given that J.E.C.M. was placed with other, older children who had been deemed at-risk, all of these factors would be expected to mentally break down any individual, let alone a 13-year-old boy who had already suffered greatly.
107. J.E.C.M.’s mental health deteriorated while at NOVA. He was the youngest resident and was the target of constant bullying. He did not feel that he could trust the other residents, and was afraid to report bullying to staff for fear of retaliation. He had significant difficulty coping with the conditions at NOVA, which he calls a jail. He felt he would never get used to being held in a jail. He wanted only to be with his family, and did not understand why he was still being held by ORR.
108. Upon information and belief, despite ORR staff recommendations that J.E.C.M. be reunified with Mr. Jimenez Saravia, ORR began requiring Mr. Jimenez Saravia’s partner, J.E.C.M.’s sister, and other adult members of the household to submit biographical and biometric information as a pre-condition to J.E.C.M.’s release. The adults in Mr. Jimenez Saravia’s household feared, correctly, that this information would be used for immigration enforcement purposes. As is common practice, Mr. Jimenez Saravia never received written notice that he had been denied as a sponsor or that he was not a viable sponsor without his household member’s
34

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 40 of 81 PageID# 1299
fingerprints. Nonetheless, J.E.C.M. remained locked in a juvenile jail only because of a change in ORR policy and the MOA.
109. J.E.C.M.’s prolonged imprisonment at a very young age, and his inability to be with his family caused him significant anxiety and sadness. He often cried when speaking to family members on the phone and struggled to cope with the daily bullying he experienced at NOVA. J.E.C.M. sought to leave this environment where he felt depressed, sad, and alone, and to be placed with his brother-in-law and family who he knew would provide him the care and attention he needed.
110. J.E.C.M. was released to Mr. Jimenez Saravia on or about July 26, 2018, just days after the filing of the First Amended Complaint [Dkt. #4] and first Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. #5] in this action. He remains living with Mr. Jimenez Saravia subject to ORR’s sponsorship agreement and may be re-detained and placed in ORR custody again in the future.
B.G.S.S. and his sponsor, Ingrid Sis Sis 111. B.G.S.S. is a 17-year-old citizen of Guatemala who came to the U.S. in May 2018. He fled Guatemala to escape persecution and because his mother had passed away. 112. Ingrid Sis Sis is B.G.S.S.’s niece, although she is older than him. The two have known each other since B.G.S.S. was a child and Ms. Sis Sis was a young adult. They would often spend time together at B.G.S.S.’s great-grandmother’s house in Guatemala. After Ms. Sis Sis came to the United States and B.G.S.S. stayed in his grandmother’s care in Guatemala, Ms. Sis Sis would call B.G.S.S.’s grandmother regularly and ask about his wellbeing and schooling, and often speak to him directly. Ms. Sis Sis also has stayed in regular communication with B.G.S.S. through text messages. 113. B.G.S.S. has never been arrested for or charged with a crime. Prior to coming to the United States, he went to school, worked, and mostly stayed in his home with his family.
35

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 41 of 81 PageID# 1300
114. B.G.S.S. was initially placed in a small BCFS-operated ORR shelter in
Raymondville, Texas which houses approximately 50 children. B.G.S.S. did well in the small
program, getting along with the other children and adjusting well as the staff worked on family
reunification. But after approximately 10 days at BCFS Raymondville, B.G.S.S. was transferred
to Casa Padre due to “emergency influx.” Unlike BCFS Raymondville, Casa Padre was a
warehouse of about 1,500 children, housed in a converted Walmart.22 Despite the number of
children, there were only 313 “door-less rooms” for children to sleep in.23 The facility was noisy,
and the rooms were merely walls that do not reach all the way to the ceiling, creating a
cacophonous echo chamber of 1,500 children day and night.24 Casa Padre had a poor reputation
22 Dan Barry et al., “Cleaning Toilets, Following Rules: A Migrant Child’s Days in Detention” July 14, 2018, The New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/migrant-children-shelters.html; see also Michael Miller, Emma Brown and Aaron C. Davis, “Inside Casa Padre, the converted Walmart where the U.S. is holding nearly 1,500 immigrant children;” June 14, 2018, The Washington Post, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/inside-casa-padre-the-converted-walmartwhere-the-us-is-holding-nearly-1500-immigrant-children/2018/06/14/0cd65ce4-6eba-11e8-bd50b80389a4e569_story.html?utm_term=.a04e5b7ab55d; “Casa Padre: Inside the Texas shelter holding immigrant children,” June 18, 2018, Reuters, available at https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/casa-padre-inside-the-texas-shelter-hold-idUSRTX69KSC (“An influx of immigrants has brought the facility to the brink of capacity with the shelter receiving a waiver to house nearly 300 more children than it is licensed for.”).
23 See Tara Francis Chan, “There are so many migrant children in one shelter a prisonstyle headcount is taking hours,” Business Insider, Jun. 25, 2018, available at https://www.businessinsider.com/headcount-of-migrant-children-in-casa-padre-shelter-takeshours-2018-6.
24 Dan Barry et al., “Cleaning Toilets, Following Rules: A Migrant Child’s Days in Detention” July 14, 2018, The New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/migrant-children-shelters.html; see also Michael Miller, Emma Brown and Aaron C. Davis, “Inside Casa Padre, the converted Walmart where the U.S. is holding nearly 1,500 immigrant children;” June 14, 2018, The Washington Post, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/inside-casa-padre-the-converted-walmartwhere-the-us-is-holding-nearly-1500-immigrant-children/2018/06/14/0cd65ce4-6eba-11e8-bd50b80389a4e569_story.html?utm_term=.a04e5b7ab55d.
36

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 42 of 81 PageID# 1301
for caring for children. Children were highly monitored and controlled, and have reported that staff have been at best unkind and at worst abusive.25 Despite being ordered by a judge to permit an Ad Litem investigator to inspect the facility and interview the children there, ORR refused access and delayed inspection by removing the matter to federal court.26
115. After being transferred to Casa Padre, B.G.S.S. became depressed, irritable, and hopeless. He was overwhelmed by the sheer number of children and people around him all the time. He could not sleep at night because of the noise, and shared a room with four other children. Unlike at BCFS Raymondville, each child only had 8 minutes to shower each day, and staff zealously wrote behavior reports about children for even the smallest transgression. With so many children together, it was inevitable that they would not all get along, so bullying and disagreements with other children were common.
116. Under the constant stress of being in the Casa Padre environment, B.G.S.S.’s mental and behavioral health deteriorated. He received several significant incident reports (SIRs) for things ORR staff alleged he said either to them or to other residents, or for not following
25 See Mary Tuma, “Allegations of Mistreatment at Southwest Key Shelter: The deportation complex,” The Austin Chronicle, August 3, 2018, available at https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-08-03/allegations-of-mistreatment-at-a-southwestkey-shelter/; see also Alan Pyke, “‘This is it for you. You’re fu**ed.’: Inside Trump’s abuse of migrant kids at an old Walmart,” ThinkProgress, July 19, 2018, available at https://thinkprogress.org/inside-the-icebox-hielera-kids-own-words-trump-borderaf33e9e0a7fb/; Rebekah Entralgo, “Employee at immigrant shelter in Arizona arrested for allegedly sexually abusing teen girl,” ThinkProgress, August 1, 2018, available at https://thinkprogress.org/employee-at-immigrant-shelter-in-arizona-arrested-for-allegedlysexually-abusing-teen-girl-7c73f67e2ac3/.
26 Mark Reagan, “County appoints investigator to look into Casa Padre,” The Brownsville Herald, July 16, 2018, available at https://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/county-appoints-investigator-to-look-into-casapadre/article_d8fc8c4b-69c3-535a-8588-e5b866c4c9f7.html.
37

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 43 of 81 PageID# 1302
program rules, mostly in response to the conditions at Casa Padre. He never received an SIR for any violent behavior.
117. One conversation with ORR staff in which B.G.S.S. made inappropriate but false claims about his age and about past and future violence ultimately resulted in his being transferred directly to a secure facility.
118. Prior to his arrival at SVJC, B.G.S.S. was never advised that his conversations with staff would be reported to ORR or could be used against him to place him in more restrictive settings. Despite his clinician, case manager, and other staff asking him about his past, his behaviors, and his statements in order to convey that information to ORR for use in making placement decisions, he was not advised of the impact his statements could have on his placement, his reunification, or potentially his immigration case.
119. Following the incident in which ORR alleges that B.G.S.S. made criminal selfdisclosures, B.G.S.S. has consistently denied being an adult or having committed violence in the past. His birth certificate has been verified by the Guatemalan embassy and by his family in Guatemala and in the United States. B.G.S.S. and all of his family not only denied that B.G.S.S. had ever committed violence in his home country but also offered plausible, age-appropriate explanations for his admittedly misguided but certainly not criminal false reports regarding his age and past. B.G.S.S. has also consistently denied having any plan to commit violence in the future. Nonetheless, despite investigating the veracity of B.G.S.S.’s “self-disclosures” pursuant to ORR Policy 1.4.2, and finding no credible support for any of them, ORR staff recommended that B.G.S.S. be placed in a staff secure facility following these uncorroborated “admissions.”
120. B.G.S.S.’s case manager recommended that he be transferred to a staff secure, or medium-level security program. Instead, and without explanation, B.G.S.S. was sent directly to
38

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 44 of 81 PageID# 1303
the most secure program available at SVJC, which serves both as an ORR facility and as a juvenile jail for minors in Virginia who have been adjudicated delinquent in state court. B.G.S.S. was detained at SVJC in the custody of ORR on August 16, 2018, when he joined this action and filed a habeas corpus petition by means of the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #21].
121. Thereafter, ORR transferred him to other secure and staff-secure facilities. He remains detained by ORR in San Antonio, Texas as of the date of filing this pleading.
122. B.G.S.S.’s sister, Blanca Jeronimo Sis, who resides and works in Virginia, first sought to sponsor B.G.S.S. and take custody of him. Ms. Jeronimo Sis formally applied with ORR to be B.G.S.S.’s sponsor and submitted her biographical and biometric information. On June 20, 2018, while at Casa Padre, ORR staff completed a release request for B.G.S.S.’s release to his sponsor. But after B.G.S.S. was transferred to SVJC, ORR added onerous steps to his reunification process, pursuant to the policies and practices described above, and told Ms. Jeronimo Sis over the phone that her sponsorship of B.G.S.S. would likely not be approved, or if it was approved would take a long time. Ms. Jeronimo Sis then gave up on the idea of being able to sponsor B.G.S.S.
123. On or about January 3, 2019, B.G.S.S.’s 27-year-old niece Ingrid Sis Sis, also a resident of Virginia, was given a sponsorship package, which she submitted to the caseworker just one day later in an effort to sponsor B.G.S.S. and finally bring him home to live with family, instead of in an institution. Some days thereafter, she was given another five pages to fill out, which she submitted within about a week. She submitted her fingerprints on January 15, 2019. Notwithstanding having quickly complied with every request by the caseworker, Ms. Sis Sis has
39

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 45 of 81 PageID# 1304
not been told the current status of her sponsorship application, nor has she been given a timeline for when she can expect B.G.S.S. to be released to her care.
124. B.G.S.S.’s prolonged imprisonment at a young age, and his inability to be with his family has caused him significant anxiety and sadness. B.G.S.S. seeks to leave this environment where he feels depressed, sad, and alone, and to be placed with his family who will provide him the care and attention he needs.
R.A.I. and her sponsor Sandra Alvarado 125. R.A.I. is a 15-year-old girl from Honduras. At the age of five, she left her parents’ house and went to live with her sister, Sandra Alvarado, because her parents could no longer care for her or support her. 126. R.A.I. came with her sister to the United States in April 2018. They came because there was significant violence in their community and to enable R.A.I. to study. Ms. Alvarado wanted a better future for her young sister. 127. Despite Ms. Alvarado being R.A.I.’s primary caretaker, the two were separated at the border by U.S. immigration officials. R.A.I. was placed in ORR custody in Virginia at Youth for Tomorrow (“YFT”). Ms. Alvarado was paroled to Maryland where she lived in an apartment with a friend. 128. Ms. Alvarado was initially told that she could not sponsor her younger sister R.A.I., whom she had raised, because the adult roommates living in her apartment refused to send any biographical or biometric information to ORR. As is common practice, Ms. Alvarado never received written notice that she had been denied as a sponsor or that she was not a viable sponsor without her household member’s fingerprints. Ms. Alvarado had to move out of her apartment and into a different home with her siblings, who were willing to provide their biographical and biometric information for the sponsorship application. Only after moving in
40

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 46 of 81 PageID# 1305
with her siblings and communicating their willingness to participate in the reunification process was she able to officially begin the sponsorship process.
129. R.A.I. was detained at YFT in the custody of ORR on August 16, 2018, when she joined this action and filed a habeas corpus petition by means of the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #21]. ORR released R.A.I. into the custody of her sister Ms. Alvarado only after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #21] and Supplemental Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. #28] identifying her as a Plaintiff and putative class representative in this action. She remains living with Ms. Alvarado subject to ORR’s sponsorship agreement and may be redetained and placed in ORR custody again in the future.
K.T.M. and his sponsor Cinthia Velasquez Trail 130. K.T.M. is a 15-year-old boy from Honduras. He fled Honduras with his older sister, Wendy, to escape violent and credible threats on his life after his father was murdered in front of him. He has experienced severe trauma and has relied on his older siblings to care for him and help him cope with the violence to which he has been exposed. He and his other sister Cinthia Velasquez Trail have always had an especially close relationship: after Ms. Velasquez Trail moved to the United States a few years ago, K.T.M. spoke with her every day by phone. He also spoke to her husband several times a week by phone. He has a close and loving relationship with both his older sisters and with his brother-in-law. 131. K.T.M. and his sister Wendy arrived in the U.S. in March 2018. Although Wendy was caring for K.T.M., they were separated at the border by U.S. immigration officers, despite K.T.M.’s desire to remain with his sister. K.T.M. was placed in ORR custody in Virginia at YFT. His sister Wendy was paroled to Texas where she is living with their sister, Cynthia Velasquez Trail.
41

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 47 of 81 PageID# 1306
132. K.T.M.’s sister, Ms. Velasquez Trail, submitted all the requisite paperwork to be K.T.M.’s sponsor. She lives with her partner and with K.T.M.’s other sister, Wendy, with whom K.T.M. traveled to the U.S. Although K.T.M.’s sister and brother-in-law both submitted all the required documentation and passed their background checks, upon information and belief, Wendy was unable to be scheduled for her background check and fingerprint appointment because ICE had confiscated her identification upon apprehension and she did not have another form of valid photo ID. As is common practice, Ms. Velasquez Trail never received written notice that she had been denied as a sponsor or that she was not a viable sponsor without her household member’s fingerprints.
133. K.T.M. was detained at YFT in the custody of ORR on August 16, 2018, when he joined this action and filed a habeas corpus petition by means of the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #21]. ORR released K.T.M. into the custody of his sister Ms. Velasquez Trail only after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #21] and Supplemental Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. #28] identifying him as a Plaintiff and putative class representative in this action. He remains living with Ms. Velasquez Trail subject to ORR’s sponsorship agreement and may be re-detained and placed in ORR custody again in the future.
M.C.L. and her sponsor, Reyna Luviano Vargas 134. Plaintiff M.C.L., 14 years old, fled Mexico last fall. She was forced to leave her home after a series of events involving the same group of violent men. They killed three of her uncles, broke into her family’s home, and threatened her at gunpoint. 135. When she entered the United States on November 6, 2018, M.C.L. was taken to a jail-like holding facility in San Diego, California. 136. M.C.L.’s mother, Reyna Luviano Vargas, lives about 150 miles from San Diego in San Fernando, California. Her husband and their daughters, ages 9 and 11, live with her.
42

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 48 of 81 PageID# 1307
137. Four days after M.C.L.’s arrival, ORR transferred her to an emergency shelter across the country in Homestead, Florida. The federal government is currently expanding that facility to hold up to hold as many as 2,350 children at a time.27 Homestead, like the abovedescribed Tornillo tent city that ORR recently closed, is not subject to state licensure and corresponding child welfare inspections.28
138. Within a week of M.C.L.’s arrival, Ms. Luviano Vargas had submitted her daughter’s sponsorship application to ORR. In it, she disclosed a 2015 insurance fraud offense for which she had served a few months in jail and completed probation.
139. Ms. Luviano Vargas and her daughter talk by phone twice a week for 10 minutes at a time. Ms. Luviano Vargas hears fear in M.C.L.’s voice, and M.C.L. tells her that she can’t be completely honest with her because case workers can overhear her conversations.
140. M.C.L. has asthma and took medication for it in Mexico. Ms. Luviano Vargas has reason to think she is not receiving appropriate medical attention in the Homestead facility, based on her daughter’s comments to her. Because of this, Ms. Luviano Vargas is consumed with worry.
141. Case workers have told M.C.L. that the reason she has been detained so long is because her mother committed a crime, and that she may have to go up for adoption due to that.
27 Andres Leighton, “The Rise and Fall of the Tornillo Tent City for Migrant Children,” Jan. 9, 2019, Associated Press, available at https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/migrantchildren-tornillo-tent-city-released/.
28 Graham Kates, “Some detention centers for migrant children not subject to state inspections,” July 5, 2018, CBS News, available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/somedetention-centers-for-immigrant-children-wont-be-subject-to-traditional-inspections/.
43

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 49 of 81 PageID# 1308
142. A supervisor reprimanded Ms. Luviano Vargas when she asked how long she could expect to wait. He told her the wait would be five to seven months, and that the long wait was her fault because she had committed a crime.
143. On January 9, 2019, Ms. Luviano Vargas was promised reunification by the case manager, who said she had gotten the results of the fingerprint check and would submit the release application that day.
144. Five days later, reunification had not occurred, so Ms. Luviano Vargas called the case manager. The case manager said she was still waiting for fingerprint results, and did not acknowledge her promise of January 9, 2019.
145. M.C.L. is desperate to leave the Homestead facility and join her mother, stepfather, and half-sisters in California. Ms. Luviano Vargas feels betrayed and distressed by the shifting representations as to when her child will come home.
A.Y.S.R. 146. Plaintiff A.Y.S.R., 17, left her hometown in El Salvador about four months ago with her one-year-old son, K.E.G.S. The violence in A.Y.S.R.’s life had reached a breaking point. From age 7 to 14, she was sexually abused by her father, a high-ranking member of a Salvadoran gang. At 14, she told her mother, who refused to believe her. Her mother died a few months later, and A.Y.S.R. was forced to keep living with her father. About three years ago, as her father was making plans to leave the country with her, she ran away from home. 147. A.Y.S.R. fell in love with a boy from her town who was one year older than her. Almost two years ago, A.Y.S.R. gave birth to their son, who suffers from convulsions. 148. They lived in relative peace despite the gang violence in their community until A.Y.S.R.’s father returned, looking for her. Members of a rival gang learned he was there and pressured A.Y.S.R. to deliver him to them. She did not want to be responsible for the death of
44

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 50 of 81 PageID# 1309
her father, but she feared the rival gang would hurt her and her baby for refusing. So she fled, heading north for the United States.
149. A.Y.S.R. did not have many close relatives in her life whom she could trust. Thankfully, she had grown to love and trust Myrna, the wife of her father’s cousin. Though Myrna lived in Colorado with her daughter, she visited A.Y.S.R. often and kept in regular contact by phone. A.Y.S.R. would not hesitate to ask Myrna for help with things for K.E.G.S. A.Y.S.R. knew that if she made it to the United States, she wanted to live with Myrna.
150. A.Y.S.R. and her son presented at a port of entry in Arizona on September 21, 2018. U.S. immigration officials tried to separate them, but A.Y.S.R. resisted. They spent four days in a Border Patrol holding facility commonly known as an “icebox” for its freezing temperatures and lack of adequate facilities for the care of children, and then were transferred to Crittenton, a youth detention center in California.
151. Myrna and her husband submitted sponsorship materials to ORR and were fingerprinted more than two months ago. They are still waiting for the results of the fingerprints. An official in Denver told Myrna the delay was due to the high number of people in detention.
152. As part of the sponsorship application process, Myrna and her husband also underwent a home study, where their lives were extensively probed and they felt their home and offer to help were criticized.
153. For the first several weeks she was detained, A.Y.S.R. was not able to talk to any loved ones outside Crittenton. Myrna had to tell the social worker that A.Y.S.R. had the right to phone calls with her. Since then, A.Y.S.R. and Myrna talk twice a week, 20 minutes at a time. A.Y.S.R. is not allowed to talk to her baby’s father, her partner.
45

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 51 of 81 PageID# 1310
154. A.Y.S.R. is depressed. She feels trapped and unwanted at Crittenton. She has trouble sleeping for the first time in her life, and when she wants to be alone she is not allowed to be. Staff took away tools A.Y.S.R. could use to hurt herself. A.Y.S.R. has been through serious trauma, and has been deprived of access to her support system – her partner and Myrna.
155. A.Y.S.R. did not know when she left home for the United States that she and K.E.G.S. would be held against their will for four months. It has been extremely hard for A.Y.S.R. to adjust to life in Crittenton despite her best efforts.
156. A.Y.S.R. turns 18 in less than three months. J.A.T.L. and his sponsor, Candy Lemus
157. J.A.T.L. is an eleven-year-old boy from Honduras. 158. J.A.T.L. entered the United States on or around August 25, 2018, near Hidalgo, Texas with an uncle. At the border, J.A.T.L. was separated from his uncle and sent to the Board of Child Care shelter in Baltimore, Maryland, where he was admitted on or around August 27, 2018. Several weeks later, J.A.T.L. was told that his uncle had been deported, which upset him. 159. In the shelter, J.A.T.L. has experienced nightmares. He has been sick on at least one occasion. 160. J.A.T.L. has received individual counseling in the shelter to help him manage his anger and build coping skills. On one occasion, he hid under his counselor’s desk at the end of his counseling session and refused to leave. 161. Staff members have reported that J.A.T.L. shows irritability and distress when he prays. 162. A psychiatric evaluation of J.A.T.L. states that J.A.T.L. feels “anxious, frightened, and alone” and concludes that his “attention seeking behaviors, clinginess, and his
46

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 52 of 81 PageID# 1311
fighting with other boys are likely caused by stress.” It recommends that he “[r]eunify with family as soon as possible.”
163. Candy Lemus, J.A.T.L.’s aunt, is seeking to sponsor J.A.T.L. She resides in South Carolina with her partner and her 4-year-old daughter.
164. Ms. Lemus submitted the sponsorship documentation to ORR in October and November 2018. In or around November, she submitted her biometric information. About several weeks later, her partner submitted his biometric information.
165. In November or December 2018, ORR performed a home visit at Ms. Lemus’ residence.
166. J.A.T.L.’s mother, Ms. Lemus’ sister, also resides in South Carolina. J.A.T.L.’s mother originally sought to sponsor him, but her husband was reluctant to submit his biometric information to ORR out of a well-founded concern that it would be shared with immigration enforcement officials.
167. A case manager named Iliana initially helped Ms. Lemus fill out the sponsorship paperwork. Since Ms. Lemus submitted the sponsorship packet, various other case managers have contacted her about J.A.T.L.’s case, causing delays because when she had questions about her sponsorship application, she did not know whom to contact. She tried calling Iliana and left her a voice message, but Iliana did not respond.
168. In or around December 2018, a case manager called Ms. Lemus to inform her that they did not receive some paperwork. Ms. Lemus believes the case manager was referring to paperwork from the home visit that Ms. Lemus had previously submitted. Ms. Lemus subsequently re-sent the home visit paper work to ORR.
47

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 53 of 81 PageID# 1312
169. Around this same time, another case manager contacted Ms. Lemus. She told her that they were still waiting on paperwork from J.A.T.L.’s mother granting custody to Ms. Lemus.
170. A case manager recently told Ms. Lemus that they are still missing two documents as well as the custody paperwork from J.A.T.L.’s mother.
171. Around Christmas 2018, Ms. Lemus drove from South Carolina to Maryland in hopes of visiting J.A.T.L. Unfortunately, she was not allowed to visit him because the shelter had not yet received a response about whether Ms. Lemus’ biometric information had been cleared.
172. Before she left Honduras around December 2016, Ms. Lemus helped raise J.A.T.L. When J.A.T.L. was younger, his mother moved to another town in Honduras for work. J.A.T.L. stayed with Ms. Lemus, Ms. Lemus’ mother, and other family members. Ms. Lemus had primary responsibility for J.A.T.L. when his mother was absent. J.A.T.L.’s mother came to the United States in 2015 or 2016.
173. Ms. Lemus speaks with J.A.T.L. about once a week, usually on Tuesdays. A case manager calls Ms. Lemus and hands the phone to J.A.T.L. J.A.T.L. generally tells Ms. Lemus that he is OK and that the shelter is taking care of him and feeding him. But Ms. Lemus can hear in J.A.T.L.’s voice that he wants to be reunited with his family. Ms. Lemus tries to reassure him that they will be together soon, but she cannot tell him when that will be.
C.E.C.P. and his sponsor, Kayla Vazquez 174. Plaintiff C.E.C.P. is a 17-year-old boy from Honduras. He turns 18 in four months. 175. From birth until he was about age 5, C.E.C.P. lived with his parents, his aunt, and his cousin Carlos. Carlos treated C.E.C.P. more like a brother, and C.E.C.P. grew to see him that way.
48

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 54 of 81 PageID# 1313
176. Carlos migrated to the United States in 2006, but he remained close to his relatives in Honduras, including C.E.C.P. In 2012, when Carlos met his future wife, he began to include her in his weekly calls with family.
177. Carlos’ wife is Plaintiff Kayla Vazquez. By the time they married in 2015, Ms. Vazquez had built a relationship of her own with C.E.C.P and had come to love him.
178. Early in 2018, Ms. Vazquez learned that C.E.C.P.’s father was physically abusing him. C.E.C.P. told Ms. Vazquez that he was desperate to escape the beatings and abuse at home.
179. C.E.C.P. left home and headed north around June 2018. On August 22, 2018, Ms. Vazquez learned that C.E.C.P. had been taken into U.S. government custody along the border. C.E.C.P. remains confined at BCFS International Children's Shelter in Harlingen, Texas.
180. Ms. Vazquez, who is a native-born U.S. citizen, volunteered to sponsor C.E.C.P. Initially, she thought her citizenship status would facilitate a faster reunification. She submitted all the required information, including certified copies of C.E.C.P.’s passport and birth certificate. She and Carlos were fingerprinted, and in December 2018, they submitted to a home visit. At that time, the investigator said C.E.C.P. would be home by Christmas.
181. Instead, the government has raised new barriers that have prolonged this family’s separation. Now the government claims to suspect that C.E.C.P. is older than 17. Without disclosing the basis for this suspicion, the case manager requested certified copies of C.E.C.P. passport and birth certificates – the same documents Ms. Vazquez produced months ago with the initial sponsorship application.
182. The government’s imposition of new obstacles to reunification without disclosure of a legitimate basis, coupled with the requests for duplicative information, frustrate Ms. Vazquez and impose needless financial costs on her family.
49

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 55 of 81 PageID# 1314
E.A.R.R. and his sponsor, Francisco Ramos Chilel 183. Plaintiff E.A.R.R., a native of Guatemala, lived with his mother and father until he was about 7, when his father migrated to the United States. His mother later abandoned him, and he moved in with his paternal grandmother until she was unable to care for him. E.A.R.R. then went to live with an adult cousin in Mexico. This cousin abused E.A.R.R., beating him and locking him inside rooms for long periods of time. 184. Plaintiff Francisco Ramos Chilel, 41, is E.A.R.R.’s father. For ten years, Mr. Ramos Chilel has sent his son financial support and spoken to him on a weekly basis. When he learned that E.A.R.R. was being physically abused, he decided E.A.R.R. needed to live with him. 185. Around July 2018, E.A.R.R. entered the United States. He spent several days confined in Texas and was then taken to an emergency shelter for immigrant youth in Homestead, Florida. 186. Despite not knowing how to read or write, Mr. Ramos Chilel submitted his sponsorship application and supporting evidence in July 25, 2018, after paying for assistance. 187. To date, Mr. Ramos Chilel has complied with every requirement caseworkers have put forth. When he was told E.A.R.R. would need his own room, he rented a second room in the house where he lived. When he was told all roommates would have to be fingerprinted, he asked his roommates, but one refused. When he was encouraged to move, he did so. Though he could not afford rent for a single-family unit, he moved in with his brother and nephew once a room became available in November 2018. 188. Since July 2018, Mr. Ramos Chilel has made three additional submissions in response to case worker requests, each time paying someone for writing services. He has been fingerprinted, as have a prior roommate, his brother, and his nephew. All four traveled to Miami for fingerprinting at the case worker’s request, which has cost Mr. Ramos Chilel hundreds of
50

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 56 of 81 PageID# 1315
dollars in transportation costs. In Mr. Ramos Chilel’s case, delays in fingerprint processing extended to 89 days. At that point, the case worker said the results were no longer valid, and told him second prints would be necessary.
189. Mr. Chilel’s brother and nephew have also complied with all requests for information. Besides the fingerprinting, they prepared statements attesting to their lack of criminal history and their encounters with immigration authorities. They also signed releases to authorize background checks for abuse and neglect.
190. Notwithstanding all these efforts, E.A.R.R. remains detained with no explanation for his continued separation from his father. More than five months of detention in the Homestead facility have harmed E.A.R.R.’s physical and emotional health. At one point, E.A.R.R. suffered from a headache so severe that he broke out in screams, and was taken to a hospital. He has become anxious and depressed, and has begun mental health treatment and medication.
191. Mr. Ramos Chilel was told by a case worker not to join this suit. Mr. Ramos Chilel is desperate to alleviate his son’s suffering by getting him out of detention and bringing him home.
Y.R.R.B. and his sponsor, Astrin Melissa Centeno Irias 192. Plaintiff Y.R.R.B., 16, grew up in a neighborhood in Honduras that was heavily controlled by gangs. He was the victim of gang violence as a child and regularly witnessed crime. 193. Y.R.R.B. began working on a bus when he was 14. He collected fares and helped passengers embark and disembark. Gang members would regularly present “extortion letters” to the bus owners, demanding they pay the gangs for permitting them to carry out their routes.
51

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 57 of 81 PageID# 1316
194. Y.R.R.B. fled Honduras because gang members used him to carry extortion payments from the bus owner to a “drop,” and Y.R.R.B. did not want to be involved out of fear for his safety.
195. Astrin Melissa Centeno Irias is Y.R.R.B.’s sister. She has lived in Texas with her minor son and roommate since 2016.
196. Ms. Centeno Irias has worked with two case managers to be reunified with her brother, and has done everything the case managers asked of her. She is frustrated because the case managers always seem to come up with more requirements for her, some of which she has had to do more than once. Y.R.R.B. has been detained for almost four months in the interim.
197. Ms. Centeno Irias and her roommate both provided fingerprints on September 27, 2018. They were told they would take 4-6 weeks to process. As of January 17th, 2019, Ms. Centeno Irias’s roommate’s fingerprints still had not been processed.
198. Ms. Centeno Irias and her roommate have both provided copious information on their work, salaries, and residences over the past five years. Providing this information made Ms. Centeno Irias’s roommate uncomfortable, but she did it anyway. Ms. Centeno Irias has also had to provide information about her minor child, like his residences and his school.
199. Ms. Centeno Irias was also asked to submit legal records. From these records the case manager discovered Ms. Centeno Irias and her child had been the victims of domestic violence. The case manager then asked Ms. Centeno Irias to request the entire archive of documents related to the abuse. Ms. Centeno Irias went to the Child Protective Services office to ask for the archive and was told the retrieval could take up to six months. Ms. Centeno Irias relayed the information to the case manager and asked if the documents she had were sufficient.
52

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 58 of 81 PageID# 1317
On January 17, 2019, the case manager renewed her request for the complete archive of documents.
200. Since November, Ms. Centeno Irias and her roommate have been asked to submit their photo identification four separate times. Most recently, on January 15, 2019, Ms. Centeno Irias’s roommate was asked again to submit her photo identification and a list of residences for the last five years.
201. Ms. Centeno Irias submitted to a home study in November. The woman who conducted the study told her she expected imminent reunification.
202. While this has been going on, Ms. Centeno Irias worries that Y.R.R.B. is deteriorating in detention. Y.R.R.B first stayed in a detention center in Kansas City where he had more freedom. In October of 2018, he got into a fight with another child. Neither he nor the other child were seriously hurt. That night Y.R.R.B went to bed. At around three in the morning, he was abruptly awakened, taken out of the facility in the dark, and put on a plane. Y.R.R.B kept asking what was going on, but no one would tell him.
203. Y.R.R.B was transferred to a staff secure facility in Fife, Washington, Selma Carson Home. Upon arrival, Y.R.R.B was told he had been transferred because he was suspected of being in a gang. Y.R.R.B is upset that he is being accused of the very thing he left Honduras to get away from. There’s been no opportunity to defend himself against the allegations, yet he feels like he is being punished all the same.
204. Y.R.R.B lives a diminished quality of life at Selma Carson Home. Only about eight boys are housed there. The building is small and dark, with low ceilings. The boys are only permitted outside one to two hours a day.
53

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 59 of 81 PageID# 1318
205. Y.R.R.B has grown frustrated with the unchanging situation and with the lack of progress despite his sister’s compliance. Depression and despair have taken hold. Y.R.R.B. feels like his current case manager doesn’t like him, and he doesn’t see her nearly as often as he saw his case manager in Kansas City. He doesn’t feel confident that she is doing what she can to reunite him with his sister. Y.R.R.B. had begun to give up hope that he would ever be released.
C.M.M. and his sponsor, Magdalena Miguel 206. Plaintiff C.M.M., 15, grew up in Huehuetenango, Guatemala. He never knew his father and was raised by his grandmother. C.M.M. completed less than one year of school in Guatemala, and cannot read or write. 207. C.M.M.’s native language is Jakaltek. Like many people in his community, C.M.M. had heard some Spanish, but didn’t speak it. C.M.M only began to actively learn Spanish when he entered the United States. 208. C.M.M. has been at two facilities since he entered the United States about six months ago. The first was Casa Padre, in Brownsville, Texas. Currently, he is in Selma Carson home, a staff-secure facility in Fife, Washington. 209. Magdalena Miguel is C.M.M.’s mother. She had C.M.M. when she was very young and moved to the United States when C.M.M. was a baby. She lives in Florida with her six daughters. 210. Ms. Miguel has had a close relationship with C.M.M. his entire life. When she found out he was in the United States, she enthusiastically wanted to sponsor him. 211. Ms. Miguel has worked with four case managers since she began the reunification process. None of the case managers spoke Jakaltek, and one of the case managers did not even speak Spanish. Ms. Miguel has a friend who, when available, acted as an interpreter with that particular case manager.
54

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 60 of 81 PageID# 1319
212. Ms. Miguel has done everything the case managers have asked of her. She has submitted paperwork, a copy of her ID, a copy of C.M.M.’s birth certificate, and a list of her daughters’ names and birthdates. She also submitted three copies of her electric bill. In September 2018, she was asked to get fingerprinted, so she did.
213. A home inspection was performed in or around October. Ms. Miguel and her daughters live in a two-bedroom apartment. The social worker told Ms. Miguel she’d need to have a separate bedroom for C.M.M., which Ms. Miguel said she’d achieve by giving her room to C.M.M. and sleeping on the sofa.
214. A social worker also told Ms. Miguel that she would have to install cameras in the house, but Ms. Miguel didn’t understand why.
215. Ms. Miguel has been very worried about her son, especially since he started working with his newest case manager. The new case manager made a rule that C.M.M.’s phone calls must be monitored, and she insists that C.M.M speak in Spanish. She won’t let him use the phone if he tries to speak in Jakaltek. This effectively inhibits their ability to communicate to one another because C.M.M. only started learning Spanish six months ago, and Spanish is Ms. Miguel’s second language. C.M.M. can’t express himself to her when they are on the phone.
216. Moreover, C.M.M. is sad because since his grandmother doesn’t speak any Spanish at all, he can’t call her on the phone to see how she is doing even though she is old and in frail health.
217. C.M.M. feels completely alone and like he has no support. His behavior is defensive and emotional. He often cries and stays in his room on his own. None of the other boys at Selma Carson Home speak Jakaltek. Between this and his case manager’s rules about phone use, C.M.M. has no one he can easily communicate with.
55

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 61 of 81 PageID# 1320
218. Isolation and despair about reuniting with his mother has lead C.M.M. to act out. As a result, C.M.M. is punished, even for minor offenses. C.M.M. is not allowed to play team sports with the other boys, he is not allowed to share a room, and he is not allowed to share a sofa while in the common room. He takes his classes separately from the other boys. His bedroom television and music privileges have been taken away. He feels trapped and completely alone.
219. When Ms. Miguel tried to ask her son about an alleged incident that C.M.M. had gotten in trouble for, the case manager yelled at Ms. Miguel for bringing up the topic and making C.M.M. emotional.
220. Ms. Miguel fears that if he is not released soon, C.M.M. is going to break down completely.
A.C.M.S. and her sponsor, Juan Bautista Maldonado Murillo 221. Plaintiff A.C.M.S., 17, fled Honduras last fall after being sexually abused and exploited. 222. She entered the United States in September of 2018 and was promptly transferred to a facility in Seattle, Washington. 223. A.C.M.S’s father Juan Bautista Maldonado Murillo lives in New Jersey, more than 2800 miles away from where his daughter is detained. 224. Mr. Maldonado Murillo was an enthusiastic sponsor of his daughter, and started the reunification process as soon as he found out A.C.M.S was in the United States. Even though he is illiterate, he completed a lengthy application with the help of his sister-in-law, submitted finger prints, and paid for and took parenting classes. 225. When Mr. Maldonado Murillo started the sponsorship process, he lived with roommates. A.C.M.S.’s case manager told Mr. Maldonado Murillo he would need to get his
56

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 62 of 81 PageID# 1321
roommates to submit their fingerprints, but the roommates told Mr. Maldonado Murillo they did not want to.
226. A.C.M.S.’s case manager told Mr. Maldonado Murillo he should find his own apartment. Not only was this a great financial strain for Mr. Maldonado Murillo, it was also something he felt he needed to do quickly to avoid his daughter’s detention from being unnecessarily prolonged. Knowing the situation, Mr. Maldonado Murillo’s brother offered him his apartment to move into. Mr. Maldonado Murillo moved in and took over the rent payments, and his brother moved out.
227. In December, the case manager ordered an inspection of the apartment, and Mr. Maldonado Murillo was hopeful the inspection would be the last step in the reunification process. But it was not, and Mr. Maldonado Murillo does not know why.
228. Most recently, A.C.M.S.’s case manager asked Mr. Maldonado to sign a form indicating that he is the one living in and paying for the apartment. Although the case manager says she sent the form, it still has not arrived.
229. In the meanwhile, A.C.M.S. has been waiting at the detention center in Seattle, a facility that currently houses between 7 to 12 girls. There she is receiving counseling to cope with the sexual abuse she suffered in Honduras.
230. The detention center has a strict no touch policy. Any kind of touching between the staff and the girls is strictly prohibited. But in recent weeks, one of the male staffers who works the night shift has been touching the girls, including stroking A.C.M.S.’s arm, and sitting on the bed and touching the feet of one of A.C.M.S.’s friends. This has been a triggering experience for A.C.M.S., who continues to cope with the emotional trauma of sexual abuse. She
57

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 63 of 81 PageID# 1322
has been terrified to sleep at night for fear the staff person will enter her room and do something to her. When she does sleep, she has terrible nightmares and wakes up screaming.
231. Four of the girls in the detention center met with the center supervisor to inform her of what the staff person had done to them. The supervisor asked the girls what they wanted the center to do about the situation, and the girls said they wanted the staff member banned from entering the center.
232. A.C.M.S. longed for the supervisor’s assurance that the staff member would not be back to work. However, the center supervisor did not tell the girls she would do as they had suggested; rather, she told them the matter would be investigated.
233. A.C.M.S. worries that the male staff member might try to do something to her for getting him in trouble. Recently, A.C.M.S. saw the staff member drive up, park his car, and walk the grounds of the facility, but he did not come into the shelter.
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. 234. Plaintiff Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”) is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Washington, DC. CLINIC’s main office is in Silver Spring, Maryland. CLINIC was founded in 1988. 235. CLINIC embraces the core Gospel value of welcoming the stranger. CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs to whom it provides training and technical assistance. 236. CLINIC is the largest nationwide network of nonprofit immigration programs, with approximately 341 affiliates in 47 states and the District of Columbia. Through its affiliates, as well as through the BIA Pro Bono Project and the Dilley Pro Bono Project (formerly known as the CARA Pro Bono Project), CLINIC advocates for the just and humane treatment of
58

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 64 of 81 PageID# 1323
immigrants through direct representation, pro bono referrals, and engagement with policy makers.
237. In response to growing anti-immigrant sentiment and to prepare for policy measures that hurt immigrant families, CLINIC launched the Defending Vulnerable Populations Project. The Defending Vulnerable Populations Project seeks to increase access to competent, affordable representation for the most vulnerable immigrants—those at immediate risk of deportation, which includes unaccompanied minors fleeing danger.
238. CLINIC also advocates for systemic change to policies and practices that affect immigrants by engaging in litigation, public policy work, and community education.
239. As part of this effort, CLINIC regularly monitors and submits comments on proposed federal regulatory changes that impact immigrants. In 2018, CLINIC submitted comments on regulatory changes by the Department of Homeland Security including: comments opposing changes that would end the Flores Settlement Agreement and comments opposing a DHS system that announced new information collections from potential sponsors of unaccompanied children and other adults in the sponsors’ households. If ORR had provided an opportunity to submit public comments on the policies promulgated through the MOA, CLINIC would have submitted comments on such proposals.
240. In the past year, CLINIC has had to divert resources to educate its network and immigrant communities about the potential effects of the MOA.
241. Defendants’ ORR policies harm CLINIC by undermining its mission and causing it to divert its resources to respond to the family separation crisis Defendants created.
59

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 65 of 81 PageID# 1324
242. As a result of the ORR policies, CLINIC has been forced to direct resources towards identifying and overcoming obstacles to family reunification. It has taken significant resources for CLINIC to develop capacity and expertise.
243. Specifically, since the release of the MOA, CLINIC has had to devote resources to this issue through the following activities:
• Submitted a comment on the DHS Notice of Modified System of Records, Docket Number DHS-2018-0013 (June 2018);
• Participated in AILA annual conference meeting on asylum, and prepared for and led discussion on the effects of the MOA (June 2018);
• Spoke with press on this issue including researching and providing background information (August 2018);
• Researched and prepared a fact sheet in English and Spanish for Proposed Sponsors of Unaccompanied Children that informs Sponsors of the risks of sponsorship under the new policies and provides sponsors with additional resources (November 2018);
• Continuing individual technical assistance for direct service providers working with unaccompanied children and their families; and
• Continuing guidance for families navigating the ORR reunification process. For example, since November 2018 CLINIC has assisted a mother whose two daughters are still in ORR custody in Florida.
244. The time that CLINIC staff has had to dedicate to these activities has been diverted from time that would have been spent providing assistance in other matters.
245. If the ORR policies continue to be in effect, CLINIC anticipates having to shift even more staff time to respond to family reunification inquiries and policy matters.
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 246. Plaintiff Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (“NWIRP”) is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Washington State. NWIRP’s main office is in Seattle, Washington.
60

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 66 of 81 PageID# 1325
247. Established in 1984, NWIRP’s mission is to advance and defend the legal rights of immigrants in Washington State.
248. Since the 1980s, at the height of a refugee crisis in Central America, NWIRP has represented children and adults fleeing violence and persecution in this region. To date, NWIRP has represented thousands of children–accompanied and unaccompanied–before immigration courts and other immigration agencies.
249. NWIRP is the largest nonprofit in the western United States dedicated exclusively to providing immigration legal services. In 2018, NWIRP submitted more than 4,500 applications for immigration benefits on behalf of clients. It is currently assisting more than 1,200 individuals with removal cases pending in immigration courts.
250. NWIRP uses a range of advocacy strategies to accomplish its mission. Besides seeking immigration benefits for clients before immigration courts and agencies, it vindicates the civil rights of immigrants through federal litigation and engages in policy advocacy on issues that impact immigrants.
251. NWIRP’s policy work spans local, state, and federal governments. At the federal level, NWIRP regularly monitors and submits comments on proposed rule changes that affect immigrants. In 2018, NWIRP submitted comments on three such proposals, including one to end the settlement in Flores v. Reno, the landmark case setting minimum standards for the care of immigrant minors in federal custody. NWIRP would have submitted comments on the policies challenged in this action if ORR had promulgated the rules through notice and comment rulemaking.
61

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 67 of 81 PageID# 1326
252. Because NWIRP is the primary immigration legal services provider in Washington, dozens of community organizations refer most requests for assistance from immigrants to NWIRP.
253. In the past year, NWIRP has begun to assist parents of children in ORR custody in advocating for family reunification. Initially, NWIRP had no protocols for offering such representation to potential sponsors, so cases were declined at intake. As requests from adults based in Washington surged, NWIRP inquired with other nonprofit providers and determined that no agency was addressing the mounting need for services caused by the challenged ORR policies.
254. NWIRP was compelled to fill that void because it furthered NWIRP’s core purpose of defending the legal rights of immigrants in Washington State. In each of the cases, parents were being denied fundamental parental rights solely because of their immigration status and that of their children. As the primary provider of immigration legal services in Washington, it had to take action.
255. NWIRP has developed an advocacy strategy that combines efforts at the administrative and legislative levels. Because no avenue exists to appeal denials or delays in sponsorship applications, NWIRP staff have pursued alternatives, contacting ORR and shelter staff directly and contacting members of Congress to intervene in problem cases.
256. NWIRP has also directed intake staff to channel such requests for assistance and conduct necessary follow-up to gather facts.
257. Defendants’ ORR policies harm NWIRP by undermining its mission to advance immigrants’ rights. The policies have also caused NWIRP to channel resources to respond to sponsor requests for assistance with family reunification.
62

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 68 of 81 PageID# 1327
258. Because of Defendants’ ORR policies, NWIRP has had to shift resources to devise avenues for reunification advocacy and provide representation to sponsors.
259. The longer the ORR policies remain in force, the more staff time will be required to work on family reunification cases. And since some of NWIRP’s funding sources compensate NWIRP on the basis of number of cases handled, NWIRP may lose resources as a result of having to divert staff time to family reunification activities.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
260. This case is brought as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), or in the alternative, as a representative habeas action on behalf of the following classes:
(1) Detained Children Class: All children who: a. are or will be in the custody of ORR, anywhere in the United States; b. at any date on or after July 20, 2018; and c. for whom a potential sponsor has begun the sponsorship application process, and who has not yet been released to that sponsor.
(2) Sponsor Class: All individuals, anywhere in the United States, who: a. have initiated the sponsorship process to sponsor a member of the Detained Children Class; b. by either i. returning a family reunification packet to ORR or to an ORRcontracted caseworker, or ii. otherwise formally advising ORR or an ORR-contracted caseworker of their desire or willingness to sponsor a child; and c. to whom the Detained Children classmember has not been released.
261. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the class definitions if discovery or further investigation reveals that the classes should be expanded or otherwise modified.
63

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 69 of 81 PageID# 1328
262. Plaintiffs reserve the right to establish sub-classes as appropriate. 263. This action is brought and properly may be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4). 264. Numerosity: With over 10,000 children detained by ORR nationwide, the proposed classes are sufficiently numerous so as to render joinder impracticable. Moreover, additional children will continue to enter the class in the future on a regular basis. 265. Joinder is also impractical because the proposed Detained Children Class consists of children who are separated from their families and other adult caretakers, many of whom are indigent, have limited English proficiency, and/or have a limited understanding of the U.S. judicial system. The proposed Sponsor Class consists of adults across the country who are attempting to sponsor UACs in ORR custody, many of whom are indigent, have limited English proficiency, and/or have a limited understanding of the U.S. judicial system. The guarantee of future unidentified class members renders joinder impractical. 266. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact affect class members, including:
(a) whether the Government is in compliance with its obligations under the TVPRA to promptly place children in the least restrictive setting possible;
(b) whether the government’s reunification policies, establishing the discretionary and opaque decision-making system described in §§ 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2, which impact all children in ORR custody and all potential sponsors, violate UACs and their sponsors’ due process rights by creating a system in which case managers make the majority of reunification decisions without any notice or opportunity for UACs or
64

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 70 of 81 PageID# 1329
sponsors to be heard, regarding either additional discretionary requirements imposed by case managers, or non-viability decisions made by case managers;
(c) whether the blanket sharing of sponsors’ biometric and biographic information with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes is in compliance with ORR’s obligations under the TVPRA to promptly place children in the least restrictive setting possible;
(d) whether the blanket sharing of sponsors’ biometric and biographic information with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes were unlawfully promulgated through an online Policy Guide and MOA between ORR and DHS in a manner not in accordance with the APA; and
(e) whether the blanket sharing of sponsors’ biometric and biographic information with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law under the APA. 267. Both the Detained Children Class and the Sponsor Class are negatively impacted by the same ORR policies, either now or in the imminent future. A finding that these policies were promulgated in violation of the APA, the TVPRA, or operate in violation of the Due Process Clause would remove the same barriers from all members of both classes in a single stroke. 268. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class, as all members of the Detained Children Class are subject to prolonged detention because of ORR’s unlawful policies, violating the TVPRA and their due process rights, and issued in violation of the APA as set forth herein; and all members of the Sponsor Class are denied their ability to sponsor their loved ones because of ORR’s unlawful policies violating their due process rights and issued in violation of the APA as set forth herein.
65

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 71 of 81 PageID# 1330
269. While the child Plaintiffs are seeking immediate release, having already suffered serious harms and infringement of their constitutional rights under the policies set forth herein, Plaintiffs recognize that not all UACs will be immediately released if the Plaintiff classes win this case. This does not defeat typicality, however, because if Plaintiff classes are successful, every class member will significantly benefit from a judgment in their favor. Requiring ORR to come into compliance with the TVPRA obligations to place children promptly in the least restrictive environment, including with their families, that is in the best interests of the child will reduce the institutionalization of immigrant children and promote their best interests, as intended by the statute. Requiring ORR to revise its policies to come into compliance with due process requirements will serve to protect the due process rights of members of both classes. Enjoining ORR and ICE’s MOA, including enjoining ORR from implementing expanded information collection and from transferring information to DHS, unless specifically warranted by an individual case, will significantly speed up the reunification process for all class members and will allow the most appropriate caregivers to proceed with the reunification process.
270. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed classes. Plaintiffs’ claims are identical to the members of the proposed classes, they have no relevant conflicts of interest with other members of the proposed classes, and they have retained competent counsel experienced in class-action and immigration law.
271. This action is brought and properly may be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3).
272. Separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications regarding the legality of ORR’s policies as set forth herein.
66

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 72 of 81 PageID# 1331
273. The U.S. government presently takes the position that its policies as set forth herein are lawfully promulgated, and to the extent that this causes the prolonged detention of immigrant children, such detention is a regrettable necessity. Thus, Respondents have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the proposed class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the proposed class as a whole.
274. Common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is thus superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Even if individual class members had the resources to bring individual lawsuits (which most do not), it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation would proceed. Individual litigation magnifies the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court. Respondents have engaged in a common course of conduct, and the class action device allows a single court to provide the benefits of unitary adjudication, judicial economy, and the fair and equitable handling of all class members’ common claims in a single forum.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
VIOLATION OF TVPRA/HABEAS CORPUS (All Child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Class, Against All Defendants) 275. Plaintiffs/Petitioners allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein. 276. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires Defendants to promptly place unaccompanied minors in their custody in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.
67

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 73 of 81 PageID# 1332
277. The child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Classmembers seek to represent a class of unaccompanied minors, and their sponsors are the individuals who, in the best interests of the child, offer the least restrictive setting to the UACs whom they are attempting to sponsor.
278. Defendants’ actions in establishing and carrying out opaque reunification policies with little to no due process protections, instituting the MOA and the associated ORR policies, and continuing the ICE fingerprint sharing policy by means of the December 18 Suallog Memorandum, all prevent the prompt placement of minors in the least restrictive setting and in the best interests of the child, in violation of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 29 (All child and sponsor Plaintiffs and the Detained Children and Sponsor Classes, Against
All Defendants) 279. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein. 280. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all “persons” on United States soil and thus applies to all child and sponsor Plaintiffs and the Detained Children and Sponsor Classes. 281. The government violates due process when it separates a family in order to generally deter illegal immigration. Ms. L. v. ICE, 310 F.Supp.3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
29 A substantive due process claim based on a legal theory involving the fundamental right to family unity was dismissed by the Court [Dkt. #60 at pp. 34-37]. Subsequently, the memorandum attached hereto at Exh. 5 was released to the public, making clear that the sole purpose of the MOA challenged in this lawsuit was to deter immigration. Accordingly, Plaintiffs herein plead an entirely different substantive due process claim herein, based on these newly revealed facts and under the legal theory of Ms. L. v. ICE, 310 F.Supp.3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2018) and R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015).
68

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 74 of 81 PageID# 1333
282. The government violates due process when it detains an individual—especially a child—in order to generally deter illegal immigration. R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.D.C. 2015).
283. As set forth above, Defendants entered into the MOA challenged in this lawsuit for the purpose of generally deterring illegal immigration, causing the prolonged detention of the child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Class and their separation from the sponsor Plaintiffs and the Sponsor Class, in violation of their right to substantive due process.
COUNT III VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (All child and sponsor Plaintiffs and the Detained Children and Sponsor Classes, Against
All Defendants) 284. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein. 285. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to all “persons” on United States soil and thus applies to Petitioners and all classmembers. 286. The child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Classmembers have a liberty interest in remaining free of government custody, and in being unified with their families. 287. As set forth above, ORR policies creating an opaque, highly discretionary reunification process, ORR’s recent MOA and associated ORR polices, and the decision in the December 18 Suallog Memorandum to continue the ICE fingerprint sharing policy, all contribute to the prolonged, unexplained detention of the child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Classmembers, and their separation from their sponsors and families. This violates procedural due process because they deprive these children of their liberty from government custody without notice or any opportunity to be heard, and cause injury of the children in the form of prolonged detention.
69

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 75 of 81 PageID# 1334
288. Likewise, these policies violate procedural due process because they deprive the Sponsor Classmembers of their right to provide care and upbringing to their loved ones, causing injury to the sponsors in the form of prolonged denial of the right to family unity.
289. In addition, the lack of due process protections, including the lack of written notice of denial or non-viability of sponsorship in the early stages of the reunification process (prior to an official denial by ORR), violates all Classmembers’ due process rights because it deprives both child and sponsor of meaningful notice of denial, the reasons for denial, and an opportunity to be heard challenging the denial and/or the reasons on which it was based.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT PROCEDURES FOR
PROMULGATING AGENCY POLICIES (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
290. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.
291. Plaintiffs and the classmembers have been aggrieved by Defendants’ action in requiring that all sponsors, and in many cases all adult household members of all sponsors, submit biometric and biographical information to be shared with DHS for the purpose of immigration enforcement before Defendants will release any child Plaintiff to his or her sponsor. This constitutes final agency action. Yet ORR has not promulgated rules that provide procedures for challenging ORR’s Policy Guide or the policies unlawfully promulgated through the MOA. The agency’s action determined the rights of Plaintiffs and has the legal consequence of keeping this class of children in ORR custody, and depriving their sponsors of their right to family unity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to judicial review of ORR’s actions under 5 U.S.C. § 704.
292. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires agency rules to be promulgated through the notice and comment process.
70

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 76 of 81 PageID# 1335
293. The APA defines a “rule” as “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.” 5 U.S.C. §551(4).
294. The ORR describes its Guide for Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied (“ORR Guide”) as detailing “ORR policies for the placement, release and care of unaccompanied alien children in ORR custody.” Exh. 1 at Intro. The biometric information requirement is contained in Section 2.6 of the Guide. Id.
295. The APA requires that an agency first publish in the Federal Register the agency’s proposed rules and its claim of statutory authority for those rules to provide notice to the public, then give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules, and then publish the final rules in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the effective date. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1)(C)(D), 553(b)-(d). ORR ignored all of these APA requirements and instead posted the ORR Guide on its website and began immediate enforcement of the requirements. See Exh. 1. Moreover, the ORR failed to articulate any explanation, much less a rational one, as to the MOA and the various 2018 amendments to Section 2.5 and 2.6 and the various subsections thereof relating to fingerprinting and fingerprint sharing with DHS. The reviewing court judges the agency’s action by the grounds invoked by the agency, and where, as here, those grounds are inadequate or improper then the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).
296. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), (2)(A), (2)(C), and (2)(D), this court should set aside the MOA and the various 2018 amendments to Section 2.5 and 2.6 and the various subsections thereof relating to fingerprinting and fingerprint sharing with DHS, and the
71

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 77 of 81 PageID# 1336
decision in the December 18 Suallog Memorandum to continue the ICE fingerprint sharing policy, as being arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory jurisdiction and for failure to observe the procedures required by the APA.
297. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies available to them as of right. 298. Plaintiffs have no recourse to judicial review other than by this action.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT PROHIBITION ON
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT ACTION (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
299. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.
300. Plaintiffs have been aggrieved by agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. First, the agency’s action entering into the MOA and the various 2018 amendments to Section 2.5 and 2.6 and the various subsections thereof relating to fingerprinting and fingerprint sharing with DHS, and the decision in the December 18 Suallog Memorandum to continue the ICE fingerprint sharing policy, is final agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law. Second, this unlawful agency action led to ORR’s final decisions not to release the child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Class pending additional fingerprinting and information sharing with DHS, despite ORR staff routinely recommending that these children be released to their sponsors. This second agency action is likewise arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law. Further, the MOA and associated ORR policies are arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law because, as demonstrated in the memorandum attached hereto as Exh. 5, the primary intent and purpose of these policies was to assist ICE in enforcing civil immigration laws against sponsors and their household members—a purpose that not only has no relationship to ORR’s mission, but
72

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 78 of 81 PageID# 1337
actually runs contrary to ORR’s statutory obligation to act in the best interests of the children in its care.
301. In addition, Defendants’ detention of the child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Class and their failure to release these children promptly into the custody of their capable and appropriate sponsors is arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law by, inter alia, either ignoring applicable provisions of the Flores Agreement and the TVPRA or interpreting those provisions in a manner that frustrates their underlying purpose, and by imposing unreasonable and unnecessary conditions precedent to releasing UACs to a suitable sponsor.
302. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies available to them as of right. 303. Plaintiffs have no recourse to judicial review other than by this action.
COUNT VI HABEAS CORPUS (All Child Plaintiffs and the Detained Children Class Against All Defendants and All Habeas Corpus Respondents) 304. As set forth above, Defendants are holding the child Petitioners/Plaintiffs30 and the Detained Children’s Classmembers in federal custody, in violation of federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution, and Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the class of children similarly situated accordingly seek a writ of habeas corpus. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, respectfully request that the Court: A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
30 A habeas corpus cause of action is stated as to J.E.C.M., R.A.I. and K.T.M. in their capacities as class representatives only.
73

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 79 of 81 PageID# 1338
B. Certify the Detained Children Class and the Sponsor Class, as set forth above, and appoint Legal Aid Justice Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center as class counsel for both classes;
C. Order the Respondents to promptly identify all classmembers to class counsel, and to notify all classmembers (and their attorneys of record, if any) of their status as classmembers in this action;
E. Declare that Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 of Defendant’s ORR Guide create a reunification process that violates Plaintiffs’ due process rights and require Defendants to promptly bring their reunification process, as described in Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 of the ORR Guide, into compliance with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution providing for adequate due process protections at each stage of the reunification process.
F. Declare that the MOA and the various 2018 amendments to Section 2.5 and 2.6 and the various subsections thereof relating to fingerprinting and fingerprint sharing with DHS, and the decision in the December 18 Suallog Memorandum to continue the ICE fingerprint sharing policy, violate the TVPRA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause;
G. Issue a writ of habeas corpus to any Petitioner/Plaintiff and any member of the Detained Children Class whose continued detention by ORR is based solely on any enjoined provision;
H. Order Defendants to immediately release to their sponsor any member of the Detained Children Class whose continued detention by ORR is based solely on any enjoined provision;
74

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 80 of 81 PageID# 1339

I. Maintain jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the above-requested relief for a reasonable period of time;
J. Award the named plaintiffs and other members of the proposed classes reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for this action, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
K. Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 18, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg (VSB No.: 77110) simon@justice4all.org Rebecca Ruth Wolozin (VSB No.: 89690) becky@justice4all.org LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520 Falls Church, VA 22041 (703) 778-3450 / fax (703) 778-3454
Counsel for child Plaintiffs, sponsor Plaintiffs, the Detained Children’s Class, and the Sponsor Class

Mary Bauer (VSB No.: 31388) Mary.Bauer@splcenter.org SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903 470-606-9307 / fax: (404) 221-5857
Saira Draper (pro hac vice pending) Saira.Draper@splcenter.org Luz Virginia Lopez (pro hac vice pending) Luz.Lopez@splcenter.org Laura G. Rivera (pro hac vice pending) Laura.Rivera@splcenter.org SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 340
75

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 72-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 81 of 81 PageID# 1340
Decatur, GA 30030 404-521-6700 /Fax: (404) 221-5857 Counsel for all Plaintiffs John Christopher Rozendaal (VSB No.: 41857) jcrozendaal@sternekessler.com Salvador M. Bezos (VSB No.: 75942) sbezos@sternekessler.com STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3934 (202) 772-8805 / fax (202) 371-2540 Counsel for child Plaintiffs, sponsor Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
76

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 138 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 2373

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

J.E.C.M.,a minor, by and through his next friend )

JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA,

)

)

Plaintiffs/Petitioners,

)

)

V.

)

)

JONATHAN HAYES,Acting Director, Office of )

Refugee Resettlement, et al..

)

)

Defendants/Respondents.

)

1:18-CV-903(LMB/MSN)

ORDER
For the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART,and it is hereby

ORDERED that the following two classes be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1):
(1)MinorClass: All children designated as unaccompanied alien minors who (a) were, are being, or will be held in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement("ORR")anywhere in Virginia at any date on or after July 20,2018,and (b) have been or will be held in ORR custody for 60 days or more.
(2)Sponsor Class: All individuals, anywhere in the United States, who (a) have initiated the process to sponsor a member ofthe Minor Class (b) as a Category 1 or Category 2 sponsor (c) by either (i) returning a family reunification packet to ORR or to an ORR-contracted caseworker or (ii) otherwise advising ORR or an ORR-contracted caseworker oftheir desire or willingness to sponsor
the Minor Class member
(d) to whom the Minor Class member has not been released.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord.
Entered this ^'0 day of April, 2019.

Alexandria, Virginia

Leonie M.Brinkema
United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 323 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 9376

Case 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN Document 323 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 9377