Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUitt [ [I
r FoR THE DISTRicT oF MAssA.cliusrns; 1:; E

- --------------------------------------~~--~. ~
)

CARLOS ENRIQUE AVILA SANDOVAL, the Consul

)

of Guatemala, as NEXT FRIEND of THREE-HUNDRED· C: ' ,

) ..· ..

/~ <_: ,.

AND FIFTY NEW BEDFORD IMMIGRANT WORKERS

)

(a.k.a. JOHN/JANE DOE## 1-350),

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

No.

~NITED oi4 ~ 1 STATES IMMIGRATIOJA:i-tusCA

l. .RGS

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT

)

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration

)

and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE, Field

)

Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field

)

Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL

)

CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security;

)

and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the . -n:.T: JUJGE~

United States,

)

)

Respondents.

)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY Ac"'D
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and complaint lor declaratory and injunctive relief filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, the Consul of Guatemala, as Next Friend and on
behalf of Petitioners John/Jane Doe## l-350 ("Petitioners"). Petitioners, acting on their own
and through their Next Friend, seek a class wTit and declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Petitioners are approximately three hundred-fifty New Bedford immigrants whose identities remain unknown at this time due to the expedited manner in which Respondent Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 10
Homeland Security ("ICE") conducted a massive March 6, 2007 workplace raid that resulted in the immigrants' detention and separation from their families and community.
Jurisdiction l. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat 1570. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28li.S.C. § 2241, art. l, § 9, cl.2 of the United States Constitution ("Suspension Clause"), as detainees and class members are presently in custody under color of authority of the United States. 'This Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651,2201,2002, 224L and 2242 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Venue 2. Venue lies in the tJnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the judicial district in which Respondent ICE carried out the raid, where the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred, and where some of Petitioners are being held and ICE's regional field office is located.
Parties 3. Petitioners John/Jane Doe## 1-350 are employed as workers at Michael Bianco Inc. in New Bedford, MA. The identity of some but not all of the Petitioners is known but their names are herein withheld out of concern that they will be retaliated against for bringing this Petition. The identity of the remaining Petitioners is presently unknown but upon information and belief will be obtained at some future time.
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 10
4. Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Petitioners' Next Friend, is the Consul of Guatemala for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vennont. Petitioner Sandoval has personally visited and met with Petitioners detained at Fort Devens following the March 6, 2007 raid.
5. Respondent ICE, the largest investigative arm of the: Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for eliminating vulnerabilities in the nation's border, and with economic, transportation and infrastructure security. DHS is charged with, among other things, administering the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("US ICE") and implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, it has decisionmaking authority over the matters alleged in this Petition and Petitioners' custody.
6. Julie L. Myers ("Myers"), is the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
7. Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States and is responsible for the administration oflCE and the implementation and enforcement of the immigration laws. As such, he is the ultimate legal custodian of Petitioners.
8. Michael Chertoff is Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and has delegated his authority to administer the laws of the United States to ICE, a component of the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security.
9. Respondent Bruce Chadbourne is the Field Office Director for Detention and Removal in the Boston Field Office ofthe Bureau oflmmigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and has legal custody of the Petitioners.
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 10
10. Petitioners appear to have been taken into oustody by ICE on March 6, 2007 from their place of employment.
11. The exact number of Petitioners taken into custody is not specifically known. Based on media reports, it appears that approximately 350 persons were seized.
12. According to various media reports, Petitioners were taken into custody because of investigations concerning the working conditions. According to a news release posted on the ICE website on March 6, 2007:
Boston Early this morning in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement-led investigation, federal authorities executed a seareh warrant at the New Bedford business Miehael Bianco, Inc. (MBI). The owner of the company and three managers were arrested on charges in connection with alleged hiring of illegal aliens. Another individual was arrested on charges that he provided fraudulent identification documents to workers at the factory, announced united States Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Julie L. Myers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent in charge Bruce M. Foucart. 13. Petitioners are or were being held at Fort Dt:vens in Devens, MA. According to media reports, Petitioners are or were being held at the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area within Fort Devens. 14. On information and belief, as a result of the raid, approximately 100 children of Petitioners were stranded with baby sitters, caretakers, and others. Advocates have collected the names of70 detained parents of minor children and estimate that as many as 210 children might have been affected. Lawyers and advocates in Massachusetts have begun the task of assisting in providing care for the children. Transferring the parents of these children would significantly hamper this process.
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 10
15. The families and children affected by the Petitioners' detention have already suffered the fear and hardship of having a loved one detained almost 100 miles away. Any further transfer would only add to this hardship. Upon information and belief, many of the spouses and children of the detained Petitioners are in the United States legally and many are Untied States citizens.
16. On information and belief, some of Petitioners appear to be indigenous Guatemalan women who may be retraumatized by separation from their families, given the history of massacres and persecution that dedmated indigenous communities in that country.
17. On information and belief, Petitioners have been or will be tran;;ported out of this District to remote locations in Texas and other distant jurisdictions to be charged administratively and placed in removal proceedings. Upon information and belief, over a dozen lawyers have met with some of the Petitioners and have established relationships with them. Transferring Petitioners outside of Massachusetts, and especially to Texas, which is over 2,300 miles away, would substantially hamper Petitioner's access to these lawyers.
18. On information and belief, pro bono counsel from loo;al bar associations and nonprofit legal services providers have organized to respond to the detainees' needs for legal rights information, legal advice and counsel, and representation, but due to the massive numbers of immigrants arrested by Defendants at one time, these resources cannot be deployed effectively without a reasonable amount oftime for attorneys accompanied by language-appropriate interpreters to adequately interview each detainee prior to the detainees' imminent transfer to remote facilities out of this court's jurisdiction.
19. Significantly, some detainees are Guatamalan and Salvadorans, according to media reports, and may not even be properly subjected to detention under the terms of a national
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 10
class action lawsuit, as reflected in the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) and American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. CaL 1991) ("ABC'), or pursuant to the injunction issued in Orantes-Hernandez v. Messe, 685 F. Supp. 1488 (C.D. CaL 1988), affd, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990). These agreements arose in response to civil wars and horrific conditions in those countries, and many Salvadorans and Guatemalans still have bona fide asylum claims arising from those horrific conditions. However, this cannot even be determined by the lawyers struggling to conduct all the interviews before the detainees are transferred to remote locations out of this Court's jurisdiction.
Claims for Relief
Count I (Constitutional Claim) 20. Petitioners allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-19. 21. Respondents are liable for the conduct of the agencies they administer. 22. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate the right of the detained Petitioners to be free from arbitrary prolonged and indefmite detention, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 23. To the extent that Petitioners' detention is without basis in law or fact and violates common law principles of due process and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Petitioners' detention is unlawfuL 24. Respondents have violated Petitioners' right to consult with counsel by denying them access to cow1sel or any means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner. This
6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 7 of 10
includes a meaningful opportunity to make decisions concerning the care of their children, a task for which proper access to counsel is fundamentaL
Count II (Statutory Claim) 25. Petitioners allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-24. 26. Respondents' actions violate the INA.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief: 1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 2. Issue process to the respondents with an order to show cause why the writ should not be granted; 3. Order declaratory, habeas and injunctive relief as well as any other relief the court may deem appropriate, including but not limited to
(a} Immediate release, or (b) A reasonable period of time, prior to any out-of-district transfer, for
detainees to obtain a meaningful opportunity to meet with counsel and have confidential communications; to be fully advised of their rights to remain silent and have counsel; to seek relief under NACARA, the ABC Agreement, or Orantes, where applicable, or release on bond or personal recognizance; and to have counsel identify any derivative United States citizens and bona fide asylum seekers;
7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 8 of 10 4. Enjoin Respondents from transferring Petitioners out of this District until they
have been afforded their full statutory and constitutional 1ights and ordering the return to this District any Petitioners who have already been transferred; and
5. Grant such other relief as the Court may d<= necessary and appropriate to protect Petitioners' rights under the common law, the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law.
8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 9 of 10

Dated: March 8, 2007
Address of Petitioners' Next Friend: Consul of Guatemala 754 Branch Ave, Suite 201 Providence, Rl 02904 ( 401) 270-6345

Counsel for Petitioners and Pe:i · ~· :ext F//d,

'

J

·-·----·-·-

emard C. f3o , ll (BBO # 049140)

Michael Sh1 (BBO #658134)

DECHERTLLP
th
200 Clarendon Street, 27 Floor

Boston, MA, 02116

(617) 728-7100

Nancy Kelly (BBO # 44562) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend St. Boston, MA 02114 (617) 371-1234

John Willshire (BBO # 547200) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend Street boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1808

Harvey Kaplan (BBO # 258640) KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN AND FRIEDMAN Ten Winthrop Square Boston, MA 021 10 (61 7) 482-4500

Ondine Sniffin (BB0#638899) Catholic Social Services ofFal! River, Inc. 1600 Bay St. Fall River, MA 02724 (508) 674-4681

9

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 10 of 10 VERIFICATION
The foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 8'h day of March 2007.
10

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 00BR£': C; )

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSEm) ,~ r,(r.

. --

"'-

)

CARLOS ENRIQUE AVILA SANDOVAL, the Consul

' ,,) ,

of Guatemala, as NEXT FRIEND of THREE-HUNDRED "" AND FIFTY NEW BEDFORD IMMIGRANT WORKERS

'> ' ';, , I',
)

(a.k.a. JOHN/JANE DOE ## 1-350),

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

No.

v.

)

)

VNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

)

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT

)

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for immigration

)

"<A 1 J)4 7 1 and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE, Field

)

,

Office Director for Detention and RemoA _ t o n
Office, Immigration and Customs Enfor~.l MI~

CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security;

)

and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the

)

United States,

)

)

Respondents.

)

-------------------------------------)

RGS

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Petitioners in the above-captioned action, acting on their own and through their Next Friend, hereby mov,e for Temporary Restraining Order and for a Preliminary Injunction
enjoining Respondents, their agents, employees, servants, and/or attorneys from proceeding with the transportation of Petitioners out of Massachusetts before they have been afforded bond hearings as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229 and 8 C.F.R. § 236, before they have had a reasonable opportunity to present evidence pursuant to 8 U.S.c. § 1231, and without the benefit oflegal counsel or legal advice concerning their legal rights. In addition, due to the urgency of the

J2676100.3.LITIGATlO~ 318120072:54 PM

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 5

requested relief, P(~titioners respectfully request that this Court order an immediate hearing on

this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

As grounds for their motions, Petitioners state as follows:

I.

Petitioners have filed herewith their Complaint on the 8th day of March, 2007.

Subsequent to filing of said Complaint, Summons were issued and hand delivered to the office of

Michael 1. Sullivan, United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, and additionally sent to

process servers for service on all other Respondents. Service is further being affected by

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested this date on all Respondents.

2. The Complaint sets forth that Petitioners have been detained by Respondents and

that Respondents, acting under color oflaw, have violated and continue to violate the right of the

detained Petitioners: to be free from arbitrary prolonged and indefinite detention, in violation of

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States.

3. The Complaint further sets forth that to the extent that Petitioners' detention is

without basis in law or fact and violates common law principles of due process and the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Petitioners' detention is unlawful.

4. The Complaint further sets forth that on information and belief, Petitioners have

been or will be transported out of this District to be charged administratively and placed in

removal proceedings, which would deprive them oftheir right to, inter alia: (1) a bond hearings

as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229 and 8 C.F.R. § 236, (2) a reasonable opportunity to present

evidence pursuant to 8 U.S.c. § 1231, and (3) the benefit of legal counselor legal advice

concerning their legal rights.

2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 5
5, The Complaint further sets forth on information and belief that Petitioners' detention and contemplated transfer has left or will leave stranded without adequate parental care approximately) 00 children of Petitioners,
6, Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law, 7. If R,~spondents are permitted to transfer Petitioners out of this District without a bond hearing, the opportunity to present evidence, or the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, they will be irreparably damaged and the transfer will be in violation ofthe statutory and constitutional rights of Petitioners. 8. If the Court grants this Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the injury, if any, to Respondents, if final Judgment be in their favor, will be inconsiderable, 9. Petitwners' damages are continuing in nature. WHEREFORE, Petitioners move the Court to enter a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction: (a) Enjoining Respondents, their agents, employees, servants, andlor attorneys from
proceeding with the transportation of Petitioners out of Massachusetts before they have been afforded bond hearings as required by 8 U.S,C, § 1229 and 8 C.F.R. § 236, before they bave had a reasonable opportunity to present evidence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and without the benefit oflegal counselor legal advice concerning their legal rights; (bJ Requiring Respondents to return to this District any Petitioners who have already been transferred from this District; and (c) Ordering that the Petitioners shall remain within the jurisdiction of this Court until further order from the Court.
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 5 Dated: March 8, 2007

Address of Petitioners' Next Friend:
Consul of Guatemala 754 Branch Ave, Suite 201 Providence, RI 02904 ( 401) 270-6345

Kaney Kelly (BBO # 44562) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend St. Boston, MA 02114 (617) 371-1234
John Willshire (BBO # 547200) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend Street boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1808
Harvey Kaplan (BBO # 258640) KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN AND FRIEDMAN Ten Winthrop Square Boston, MA 02110 (617) 482-4500
Ondine Sniffin (BBO#638899) Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc.
1600 Bay st.
Fall River, MA 02724 (508) 674-4681
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 5

Certificate of Service

r' _ I hereby certify that on this

day of March, 2007, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing document is being forwarded to the following by certified mail, return receipt

requested:

Michael J, Sullivan United Stat,es Attorney John Joseph Moakley United Stat.!s Courthouse, Suite 9200 I Courthouse Way Boston, MA 02210
Julie L. Myers Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 425 Eye Street, NW Room 7100 Washington. D.C. 20536
Alberto Gonzales United States Attorney General United States Department ofJustice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Peter D. Keisler Assistant Attorney General Office oflmmigration Litigation
Civil Division United States Department of Justice 1331 Permsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20444

Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland
Security Office ofthe Chief Counsel P.O. Box 8728 JFK Station Boston, Massachusetts 021 14
Bruce Chadbourne U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Interim Field Office Director for Detention and Removal JFK Federal Building Government Center Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Michael Chertoff Secretary of Homeland Security United States Department of
Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528
ely,
tl--~ Bernard J.

5

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

i r:, • I /" I,~

)

CARLOS ENRIQUE AVILA SANDOVAL, the Consul

)

of Guatemala, as NEXT FRlEND of THREE-HUNDRED

)

AND FIFTY NEW BEDFORD IMMIGRA,NT WORKERS

)

(aka, JOHN/JANE DOE ## 1-350),

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

v,

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

)

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT

)

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security tor I B ''on ~

let and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBO

iel

Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston

Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL

)

CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security;

)

and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the

)

United States,

)

)

Respondents.

)

-- , ,-. , " ,
No, _ __
1 0 4 Ii J.

J:(,lio

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
Petitioners, acting on their own and through their Next Friend, Carlos Enrique Avila
Sandoval, submit this memorandum in support of their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction,

INTRODUCTION This action challenges the seizure, current detention, and ongoing transportation of Petitioners out of this District, which have resulted from a massive workplace raid on March 6, 2007, by agents ofthc Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ("ICE") of the

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 11
Department of Homeland Security and the detention of approximately 350 individuals who are Petitioners in this casco According to media reports, just days after thc raid, ICE has already or intends to transport Petitioners from this District to remote locations in Texas and other jurisdictions to be charged administratively and placed in removal proceedings. Due to the large number of Petitioners that have been detained en masse, Petitioners have had limited access to attorneys and thus effectively will be deprived of their constitutional right to be represented by counsel of their choice unless they are allowed to remain in this District for a sustained period of time during which the local legal community has the opportunity to initiate representation of Petitioners. In addition, transfer of Petitioners out of this District would, by removing them from their families and local community, deprive Petitioners of their right to a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf. Furthermore, allowing immediate transfer of Petitioners would create personal hardship not only on Petitioners themselves but on their families and local communities. Indeed, as widely reported in the media, approximately 100 children of Petitioners were stranded without parental supervision as a result ofthe raid, and while spokespersons on behalf of Respondents have stated that they will release detained individuals that can demonstrate they are the sole caregivers oftheir children, Respondents have made no assurances
that they will take proper measures to ensure that such a release process will be carried out in a
reliable or timely fashion. Petitioners' pending transier out of this District thus would violate their rights under the
Constitution and their statutory rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court should grant Petitioners' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and grant the relief sought therein.
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 11
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning of March 6, 2007, in an ICE-led investigation, approximately 300 federal agents executed a search warrant at the New Bedford, Massachusetts factory of Michael Bianco Inc. ("MBI''). The owner of MBI and three managers were arrested on charges in connection with the' alleged hiring of illegal alien workers. A fifth individual was arrested on charges that he provided fraudulent identification documents to workers at the factory.
During the course of the search, the federal agents detained approximately 350 of the 500 workers at the factory, most of whom were women. According to media reports, as a result of the raid, approximately 100 children of the detainees were stranded at schools, daycares, and with babysitters, caretakers, and others. A spokesperson for ICE has stated that the agency has coordinated with state officials to address childcare issues and that detainees that are sole caregivers of children would be released. ICE has not provided any details on the procedures used to assess and verify whether detainees are sole caregivers of children.
ICE has not released a list of persons taken into custody during the raid. According to media reports, the d,etained workers were taken to Fort Devens in Devens, Massachusetts, and are or were being held at the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area. Media reports further indicate that the detainees have been or will be transported out of Massachusetts to remote locations in Texas and other areas to be charged administratively and placed in removal proceedings. ICE has not provided any infonnation as to which detainees have been or will be transferred from Massachusetts, nor has it indicated whether any of the detainees have or will be charged administratively and placed in removal proceedings in Massachusetts. The ICE has also has not reported that any detained workers have been charged with a crime or been provided a bond hearing in Massachusetts.
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 11
ARGUMENT To obtain preliminary injunctive relief or temporary restraining order, the movant must demonstrate the following: (1) they will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted; (2) such harm to the plaintiffs outweighs any harm that a grant of injunctive relief would inflict on the defendants; (3) they have a likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of injunctive relief. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Fife, 311 F3d I, 8 (1 st eir. 2002); Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir.l981). Here, while the information provided by ICE has been sparse, it is clear even from what little is known that the fOUT factors unitormly favor Petitioners, and accordingly, their motion should be granted.
I. TRANSFER WOULD DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE Although the government has wide discretion to transfer immigration detainees, it cannot
transfer detainees in violation of their statutory or constitutional rights, See LaDuke v, Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985), amended by, 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he executive branch has no discretion with which to violate constitutional rights. "). As courts have made clear. due process "mandates that [an alien] is entitled to counsel of his own choice at his own expense under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act." Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir.1985), Indeed, courts have "consistently emphasized the critical role of counsel in deportation proceedings."l Baires v, INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 n,2 (9th Cir.1988); see Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d at 863 (alien's right to counsel is "fundamental"); cf Lozada v, INS, 857
Under the INA, an individual in a removal proceeding "shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose," 8 U.S,c. § 1362.
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 11
F,2d 10, 13 (1 st Cir. 1988)(recognizing limited due process right to effective assistance of counscl in a deportation proceeding),
Here, the circumstances surrounding the massive raid have severely constrained Petitioners' ability to seek out and retain attorneys of their choice, Petitioners are presently bcing held at a location outside the Boston metropolitan area to which access has been restricted, Moreover, even if access was unlimited, because ofthe sheer number of Petitioners detained, their need for legal representation eannot be effectively absorbed by the surrounding legal community without sufficient time and a high degree of mobilization and coordination, Transferring such a massive group of individuals to a remote and unfamiliar location that most likely has even less of an ability to accommodate the legal representation needs of such a large group would greatly compound the problem and effectively deprive Petitioners' oftbeir right to counsel. See Louis v, Meissner, 530 F, Supp, 924, 926-27 (S,D, Fla. 1981) (transportation from "relatively advantageous location" to obtain legal representation and translators to remote area violated right to counsel); see also Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d at 863 (finding that transfer WilB a key factor undermining petitioner's right to counsel).
Additionally, to the extent Petitioners havc pre-existing attorney-client relationships with local attorneys, transfer would obviously interfere with those relationships and deprive Petitioners of their right to counsel. See Committee ofCentral American Refogees v, INS, 795
F,2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cit. 1986), amended by 807 F.2d 769 (9th CiT. 1986) ("The key factor
present in each of these cases showing a eonstitutional deprivation is the existence of an established, on-going attorney-client relationship,"); Louis, 530 F. Supp, at 929 (transfer of refugees whose attorneys had filed notices of appearance on their behalf"constitutes a direct and
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 11

substantial interference with an ongoing attorney-client relationship"); see also Garcia-Guzman v. Reno, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1090 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
In addition to ensuring that Petitioners' are adequately counseled with regard to a host of critical issues applicable in many eircumstances~for example, Petitioners must be adequately advised as to issues conceming political asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, eligibility for cancellation ofremoval under 8 U.S.C § 1229(b), withholding ofremoval under 8 U.S.C § 1231 (b)(3), so-called U and T visas and VAWA petitions, and waiver of rights pursuant to signing a stipulated removal order--preserving Petitioners' right to counsel has added significance given thc particular facts of the raid. For instance, according to media reports, the majority of Petitioners detained in the raid arc of Guatamalan and Salvadorian decent. Accordingly, to the extent Petitioners may be eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), under the settlement in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991), or pursuant to the injunction issued in Orantes-Hernandez v. Messe, 685 F. Supp. 1488 (CD. Cal. 1988), aff'd, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990),2 they should have counsel to assess and inform them of such rights. Some Petitioners may not be properly detained at ali, and even one unjustified day of detention causes irreparable harm.

II. TRANSFER WOULD DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THEIR OWN BEHALF IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
Under § 240(b)(4) of the INA, Petitioners are guaranteed a reasonable opportunity to
present evidence in their own behalf in removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). If Petitioners

2

Under NACARA and ABC, certain Gautemalans and Salvadorans have the right to apply for

lawful permanent resident status, and under Grantes, Respondents shall not transfer detainees who are not

represented by COlll1se\ from the district oftheir apprehension for at least seven days to afford detainees

the opportunity to obtain cOlll1sei.

6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 7 of 11
are transported out of the Distriet for removal proceedings, their right under § 240(b)(4) essentially vanishes. While perhaps in theory a detainee far removed from her city of residence may be able to gather documents and evidence on her behalf, the practical reality is that transfer would effectively render § 240(b)(4) meaningless to Petitioners. Without local community ties and the aid of friends and relatives, Petitioners would be hard-pressed to collect the evidence they would be able to access if they were to remain in this Distriet. See La Franca v. INS, 413 F.2d 686 689 n.9 ("Ordinarily the better procedure would be to hold the hearing in the district of the alien's residence or place of arrest. Obviously it should not be held in a distriet so far removed from his residenee or place of arrest as to deprive him of a fair hearing. "). Moreover, just as with the availability of legal representation, the mass movement of detainees to a different locale would quickly sap any resources that might be helpful in gathering evidence remotely if only several individuals were involved. See generally Amanda Masters, Case Note, Is Procedural Due Process in a Remote Processing Center a Contradiction in Terms?·Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Board oflmmigration, 57 Ohio St LJ. 999,1012 (1996) (citing La Franca and noting Illat cases suggest that when detainee is transferred to small, remote town, she is deprived of "access to counsel, evidence, witnesses, and thus procedural due process"). Ill. TRANSFER WOULD DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT
TO A BOND HEARING PURSUANT TO 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c) To the extent Petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1 (c) to determine eligibility for release on bond, transfer to another jurisdiction would severely hamper such right. As noted above, transfer of such a large group of detainees to a remote, unfamiliar jurisdiction to which the detainees have no local ties or community relationships constrains their ability to obtain adequate representation and effectively navigate through administrative proceedings. Indeed, with Iittie, if any, access to documents and other evidence located in or
7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 8 of 11
around their place of residence, Petitioners' right to a bond hearing would be vacuous. Moreover, transfer would in all likelihood create delays in administratively processing Petitioners and providing them with the requisite bond hearings. Finally, in the event they are granted release, Petitioners would find themselves in a remote location from which it would be difficult for them to return. Accordingly, rather than being transported to an unfamiliar location immediately after being seized at their workplace, Petitioners should be promptly be afforded the bond hearings to which they are entitled in this District.
IV. TRANSFER WOULD CREATE UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR PETITIONERS AND THEIR FAMILIES Finally, as an overriding fairness concern, the extreme and unusual circumstances of the
New Bedford raid has left the local community in tatters and removing Petitioners outside of this District would cause further chaos. Because Petitioners, most of whom were women, were seized during the course of the day at work, they did not have the opportunity to make proper arrangement for family members who require their care. Indeed, multiple newspaper reports estimate that around 100 children were left stranded at schools and other care providers on the day of the raid, and social service organizations were left to scramble to find appropriate eare for the children. See Ray Henry, Dozens of Children in State Custody After Immigration Raid, Boston Globe, March 7, 2007. ICE officials have stated that detainees who can demonstrate that they are the sale caregivers for their children will likely be release, but if Petitioners are transferred out of the Commonwealth, this possibility is impractical, if not impossible. Moreover, ICE has not even addressed others who are adversely impacted by the raids, such as the elderly, the sick, or the disabled that are cared for by those detained.
Given the tremendous stress that the situation has put on the area's social services organizations, allowing Petitioners to remain in the area where they can better coordinate efforts
8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 9 of 11 to identify and aid those in need and to otherwise get their life affairs in order is warranted in this case. In addition, some of Petitioners appear to be indigenous Guatemalan women who may be retraumatized by separation from their families, given the history of massacres and persecution that decimated indigenous communities in that country.
Finally, the workers need to stay in Massachusetts so that they can pursue legal claims against Michael Bianco Inc., for violation of the state laws governing timely payment of wages and overtime pay, a.l well as potential violations of the child labor laws. Without being present in the Commonwealth, the workers will be unable to file complaints with the Office of the Attorney General or to serve as witnesses as part of the Attorney General's anticipated investigation.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, tbe Court should grant Petitioners' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and afford the relief set forth in the proposed order submitted therewith.
9

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 10 of 11

Dated: March 8, 2007
Address of Petitioners' Next Friend: Consul of Guatemala 754 Branch Ave, Suite 201 Providence, RI 02904 (401) 270-6345

es ctiVI suted,
~mard oU:, II-I(-B-B-O-# 049140)
Michael Shin (BBO #658134) DECHERTLLP
th
200 Clarendon Street, 27 Floor Boston, MA, 02116 (617) 728-7100
Nancy Kelly (BBO # 44562) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend Sf. Boston, MA 02114 (617) 371-1234
John Willshire (BBO # 547200) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend Street boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1808
Harvey Kaplan (BBO # 258640) KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN AND FRIEDMAN
Ten Winthrop Square
Boston, MA 02110 (617) 482-4500
Ondine Sniffin (BB0#638899) Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc. 1600 Bay St. Fall River, MA 02724 (508) 674-4681
Counselfor Petitioners and Petitioners' Next Friend
10

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 3 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 11 of 11

Certificate of Service

-L,- I hereby certify that on this

day of March, 2007, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing document is being forwarded to the following by certified mail, return receipt

requested:

Michael J. Sullivan United States Attorney John Joseph Moakley United Stat,:s Courthouse, Suite 9200 1 Courthouse Way Boston, MA 02210
Julie L Myers Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 425 Eye SIr.'et, NW Room 7100 Washington, D.C. 20536
Alberto Gonzales United States Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Peter D. Keisler Assistant Attorney General Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division United States Department of Justice 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20444

Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.s. Department of Homeland
Security Office of the Chief Counsel P.O, Box 8728 JFK Station Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Bruce Chadbourne U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Interim Field Office Director for Detention and Removal JFK Federal Building Government Center Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Michael Chertoff Secretary of Homeland Security United States Department of
Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528

,ls. ~

.B.ie-rn-a'r-d-hc

-

+-+---
onn, ll!

II

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

________________________________________________

)

CARLOS ENRIQUE AVILA SANDOVAL, the

)

Counsul of Guatemala, as NEXT FRIEND of

)

THREE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY NEW BEDFORD

)

IMMIGRANT WORKERS, (a.k.a. JOHN/JANE

)

DOE ## 1-350),

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for

)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE

)

CHADBOURNE, Field Office Director for Detention )

and Removal, Boston Field Office, Immigration and

)

Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

)

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and

)

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the

)

United States,

)

)

Respondents.

)

________________________________________________)

C.A. No. 07-10471-RGS

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiffs/Petitioners seek an order from this Court enjoining the transfer of the Petitioners out of state from Ft. Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts, where they were temporarily detained since being taken into custody on March 6, 2007, in connection with an enforcement action at a manufacturing facility in New Bedford, Massachusetts that employed hundreds of illegal aliens. Because the U.S. District Court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary transfer of aliens for detention pending proceedings, Petitioners cannot show a likelihood of success on the

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 18
merits. Nor can Petitioners show irreparable harm, since they will have the same rights and proceedings in Texas or elsewhere in the United States -- including the rights to seek release from custody before an Immigration Judge, a hearing, an opportunity to move for change of venue, and the right of administrative appeal -- as they would have in Massachusetts.
Since Petitioners cannot show that the four factors for an injunction weigh in their favor, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order should be denied.
PETITIONERS FAIL IN THEIR BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE FOURPART INJUNCTION STANDARD WEIGHS IN THEIR FAVOR, AND THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION. The First Circuit has set out the four-part standard that must be met for the entry of a preliminary injunction in Esso Standard Oil Co. (P. R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 17-18 (1st Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). See also Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2003)(“in sum, we hold that the applicable standard for evaluating requests for stays pending review of final orders of removal is the four-part algorithm used for preliminary injunctions.”). In assessing whether an injunction is merited, a court must consider: 1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm [to the movant] if the injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions, i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant if enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant if no injunction issues; and (4) the effect (if any) of the court's ruling on the public interest. Esso Standard Oil Co. (P. R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d at 17-18. The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in its favor. Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003). The likelihood of success on the merits has been recognized as “the sine qua non” to
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 3 of 18
preliminary injunctive relief. Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1993). See also Lancor v. Lebanon Hous. Auth., 760 F.2d 361, 362 (1st Cir. 1985) (“[o]f these four factors, the probability-of-success component in the past has been regarded by us as critical in determining the propriety of injunctive relief.”) A. There Is No Likelihood Of Success On The Merits Because The Court Lacks Subject
Matter Jurisdiction To Review Any Aspect Of A Removal Case Other Than A Pure Detention Challenge In Habeas Corpus Proceedings. In the instant action, there is no likelihood of success on the merits because the Court undoubtedly lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any aspect of a removal action against an alien, except for habeas corpus claims of unlawful detention.1 Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (“enactment of the Real ID Act . . . in the plainest of language, deprives the district courts of jurisdiction in removal cases.”). In particular, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) as to the “appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) (“The Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.”); Gandarillas-Zambrana v. BIA, 44 F.3d 1251, 1256 (4th Cir. 1995) (“The INS necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings . . . and
1 Habeas challenges to pure detention -- that is, challenges only as to the fact of detention or continuing detention and not vicariously to the lawfulness of a removal order -- are not affected by the REAL ID Act section 106 jurisdictional amendments. See Conference Report, 151 Cong. Rec. H2813, 2873, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., available at 2005 WL 1025891 (May 3, 2005)(“Moreover, section 106 would not preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are independent of challenges to removal orders.”). See e.g., Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2005) (a habeas petition challenging “only the petitioner’s detention rather than his removal” is not barred by amendments made by the REAL ID Act.).
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 4 of 18
therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another.”); Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 1985) (“We are not saying that the petitioner should not have been transported to Florida. That is within the province of the Attorney General to decide.”); Sasso v. Milhollan, 735 F.Supp. 1045, 1046 (S.D.Fla. 1990) (holding that the Attorney General has discretion over location of detention).
The Attorney General's discretionary power to transfer aliens from one locale to another, as he deems appropriate, arises from this statutory language. See Van Dinh v. Reno, 197 F.3d 427, 433 (10th Cir. 1999).
It is further provided at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) that: 242(a)(2)(B) DENIALS OF DISCRETIONARY RELIEF.Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory) including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and except as provided in subparagraph (D), and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review-
* * * (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of homeland security the authority for which is specified under this title to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of homeland security other than the granting of relief under section 208(a). (Emphasis added). It is plain that the statutory authority of the Attorney General under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) to “arrange for appropriate places of detention” (emphasis added) imports the exercise of discretion. Avramenkov v. INS, 99 F.Supp.2d 210, 213 (D. Conn. 2000). In Avramenkov, supra, an alien who had been placed into removal proceedings filed a habeas corpus petition seeking, inter alia, an injunction preventing the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 5 of 18
(“INS”) from transferring petitioner from Connecticut to Louisiana. Avramenkov v. INS, 99 F.Supp.2d at 213. The Avramenkov court determined that with respect to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary power to transfer aliens from one locale to another, as she deems appropriate, arises from this statutory language”, and agreed that under the discretionary review bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) “the court lacks jurisdiction to prevent the INS from transferring the Petitioner to a federal detention facility in Oakdale, Louisiana.” Id. See also Van Dinh v. Reno, 197 F.3d at 434 (“Because the discretionary decision to transfer aliens from one facility to another and the correlative discretionary decision to grant our deny relief from such a transfer is a ‘decision . . . under this subchapter.’ Judicial review of that decision is expressly barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).”). Cf. Latu v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 1012, 1019 (10th Cir. 2004) (court holding that district court lacked habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) to hear claim of alien habeas petitioner challenging INS decision to commence removal proceedings in one state rather than another, because “[petitioner] “cannot allege a constitutional or legal right to have removal proceedings against him commenced in a particular place -- that decision is left to the unfettered discretion of the attorney general. [Petitioner] therefore cannot satisfy the requirement of stating that he is being held in violation of the federal laws or Constitution.”
Moreover, even if judicial review were not statutorily barred, the command of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g) to “arrange for appropriate places of detention” for aliens in removal proceedings provides no standard against which to review the exercise of discretion. The First Circuit has held that “review is not to be had if the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36,
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 6 of 18
40 (1st Cir. 1999)(citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985). Because the decision where to commence removal proceedings against an alien “is left to the unfettered discretion of the attorney general”, Latu v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d at 1019, “the very nature of the claim renders it not subject to judicial review”. Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d at 40. Cf. St. Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 202 (1st Cir. 2003) (“[t]he scope of habeas review is not the same as the scope of statutory judicial review in the courts of appeal. . . . if a statute makes an alien eligible to be considered for a certain form of relief, he may raise on habeas the refusal of the agency to even consider him. But he may not challenge the agency's decision to exercise or not exercise its discretion to grant relief.”).
Accordingly, Petitioners have failed in their burden of establishing any likelihood of success on their claims, see Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d at 120, and the motion for injunction should be denied.
B. No Irreparable Harm Will Be Suffered If The Injunction Is Denied. Petitioners have failed to establish any irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. Petitioners have no “constitutional or legal right to have removal proceedings against him commenced in a particular place”, Latu v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d at 1019. The Immigration and Nationality Act (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.) gives Petitioners the same rights and privileges outside of Massachusetts as in Massachusetts. See e.g. Avramenkov v. INS, 99 F.Supp.2d at 214. Aliens placed into removal proceedings must have their removal cases heard before an Immigration Judge. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1) (“An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.”). In the case of an alien determined by an Immigration Judge to be removable from the United States, the removal order may then be
6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 7 of 18
appealed administratively as of right to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(a) (2006) (“Decisions of Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals as authorized by [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b) (providing BIA appellate jurisdiction from decisions of Immigration Judges in exclusion, deportation, and removal cases)]”.
Judicial review of any final administrative order of removal entered against an alien may then be pursued only at the appropriate circuit court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(1) (directing that “[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”), and 1252(b)(2) (prescribing venue in review of a removal order, “[t]he petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.”). See also Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (“The Real ID Act amended section 242 of the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252, to place review of all final removal orders, for both criminal and non-criminal aliens, in the courts of appeals. . . . By channeling review to the courts of appeals, Congress sought to streamline what it saw as ‘bifurcated and piecemeal’ review of orders of removal.”).
Importantly, if an alien detained by ICE pending determination of his removal proceedings believes he should be released from ICE custody, he may apply for a redetermination of his custody status before an Immigration Judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(a) (2006).
These statutory and regulatory provisions obtain to all affected removal proceedings, obviously, regardless of the physical location of an alien’s removal proceedings. What is more, should an alien in removal proceedings desire that his case be heard in a location different than
7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 8 of 18
the one he is in, regulations provide for apply for a discretionary change of venue before the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (2006) (Immigration Judge “for good cause, may change venue only upon motion by one of the parties”).
Petitioners assert that they will suffer irreparable harm because the transfer out of state will deprive them of representation by attorneys in Massachusetts they may want to represent them during the removal proceedings, and that any transfer from Massachusetts will interfere with their ability to present their case. Such a claim does not raise the risk of irreparable harm or mean that the balance of harms weighs in plaintiff’s favor or create any basis to enjoin the transfer.
As an initial matter, while an alien in removal proceedings is entitled to representation by counsel, “at no expense to the Government,” 8 U.S.C. § 1362, the right to counsel in a civil immigration proceeding does not implicate the Sixth Amendment concerns of criminal cases. See, e.g., Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3d 56, 63 (1st Cir. 1999).2 And even in a criminal case, a defendant's absolute right to counsel does not mean an absolute right to particular counsel. U.S. v. Poulack, 556 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1977).
Nor in this context does an alleged “existing” relationship with counsel -- and petitioners here have not shown here that such a relationship “existed” before this action -- establish undue
2Indeed, in motions to reopen or reconsider that raise ineffective assistance of counsel, the First Circuit has recognized a high threshold for constitutional claims. See Betouche v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 147 (1st Cir. 2004) (recognizing Fifth Amendment due process rights may be implicated only where counsel's assistance was so incompetent as to render removal proceedings "fundamentally unfair"); Hernandez v. Reno, 238 F.3d 50, 57 (stating that the court was “unwilling, unless directed to do so, to incorporate into civil deportation proceedings the whole apparatus of Sixth Amendment precedent.”); Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 1988); Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3d 56, 63 (1st Cir. 1999) (applicant claiming denial of due process must show prejudice).
8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 9 of 18
interference with due process or right to counsel, or any prejudice. Transfer to another location for detainment and removal proceedings does not by itself establish interference with counsel. In Avramenkov v. INS, 99 F.Supp.2d 210, 214 (D. Conn. 2000), for example, a petitioner seeking an injunction preventing the INS from transferring him from Connecticut to Louisiana argued that the transfer would interfere with his pre-existing attorney-client relationship, the court determined that Avramenkov had failed to “provide evidence of an ongoing relationship with his attorney or that a transfer to Louisiana would effectively destroy that relationship.”
The Avramenkov court reasoned that while a transfer to Louisiana might make communication inconvenient for petitioner’s witnesses, the transfer alone is “insufficient to establish a prejudice required to prevent a transfer.” Id. See also Rady v. Ashcroft, 193 F.Supp.2d 454, 457 (D. Conn. 2002) (“While the transfer to Louisiana will make it more difficult for the Petitioner to communicate with her attorney, the Petitioner will not be prevented from such communication. Petitioner will hold the same rights and be subject to the same removal proceedings whether she remains in Connecticut or is transferred to Louisiana.”).
Finally, but not least, there is no irreparable injury relating to child care issues.3 The ICE Field Office Director, Bruce E. Chadbourne, has set the record straight that the State Department of Social Services (“DSS”) has been involved even before the operation was underway with the goal of assuring child care for detainees. See Attachment A, Declaration of Field Office Director
3 See e.g. Payne-Barahona v. Gonzales, --- F.3d --- (1st Cir. 2007) (2007 WL 60573, *2)(observing that “deportations of parents are routine and do not of themselves dictate family separation. If there were such a right, it is difficult to see why children would not also have a constitutional right to object to a parent being sent to prison or, during periods when the draft laws are in effect, to the conscription of a parent for prolonged and dangerous military service.”).
9

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 10 of 18
Bruce Chadbourne, ¶ 17. DSS has been provided unrestricted access to interview those immigration detainees at Ft. Devens who have either expressed concern over child care issues, or whom DSS itself has sought to interview. Id. ¶ 18. DSS has had all the access it has asked for in terms of interviewing the Ft. Devens detained population, and in fact last evening, Wednesday March 7, 2007, twenty (20) DSS agents toured the Ft. Devens immigration detainee dormitories, and detainees were advised that any who desired to speak to DSS officials could and should do so then. Id., ¶ 20. Upon information and belief, the DSS workers interviewed every detainee who expressed a willingness to speak with them. Id.
In the end, ICE efforts to address child care issues have continued with DSS and, upon information and belief after continuing inquiry, there are at present no unaddressed emergent child care situations relating to any of the aliens now in immigration detention at Ft. Devens as a result of the New Bedford worksite enforcement action. Id., ¶ 21. Moreover, ICE Field Office Director Chadbourne has declared that those individual detainees as to whom DSS has expressed concerns relating to child care issues will not be transferred4 for removal hearing locations outside of Massachusetts. Id.
Obviously, as set out above in the removal proceeding regulations, it is provided that any particular claim by an alien in removal proceedings that his or her case should be heard in one
4 The issue of family ties is rarely treated in transfer cases, given that there is no associated right to avoid hardship to family members in detainment location decisions. The notion of hardship to family members has been discussed in the context of complicating a petitioner’s ability to use them for witnesses in removal proceedings, however. For example, in Rady v. Ashcroft, 193 F.Supp.2d 454, 457 (D. Conn. 2002), a case with facts very similar to Avramenkov, supra, the petitioner sought a waiver of removability on the basis of undue hardship to her children per INA § 212(h). The court found that although the transfer would complicate communications and require her relatives to travel to Louisiana, the children would still be able to testify because “[c]ounsel for Petitioner will continue to have easy access to Petitioner’s children in preparing for any hearing.” Rady v. Ashcroft, 193 F.Supp.2d at 457.
10

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 11 of 18
location rather than another, must be raised by motion to change venue to the Immigration Judge in administrative removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (2006) (Immigration Judge “for good cause, may change venue only upon motion by one of the parties”).
Congress has delegated the responsibility for the orderly determination of such claims to the administrative offices of the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and has repeatedly and explicitly provided in various statutory commands that “no court shall have jurisdiction” matters related to removal proceedings, except by petition for review of a final administrative order of removal to an appropriate circuit court of appeal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1252(b)(9), 1252(g); Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (“enactment of the Real ID Act . . . in the plainest of language, deprives the district courts of jurisdiction in removal cases.”). It follows that this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the transfer of plaintiff from Massachusetts. Cf. Tejada v. Cabral, 424 F.Supp.2d 296, 298 (D. Mass. 2006)(Young, D.J.)(“Congress made it quite clear that all court orders regarding alien removal -be they stays or permanent injunctions -- were to be issued by the appropriate court of appeals.”).
Accordingly, Petitioners have failed in their burden of establishing that any irreparable injury would result if the injunction is not issued, see Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d at 120, and the motion for injunction should be denied.
C. The Balance of Relevant Impositions Tilts Sharply Against Issuance of The Injunction.
The balance of relevant impositions, i.e., “the hardship to the nonmovant if enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant if no injunction issues”, Esso Standard Oil Co. (P. R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d at 17-18, counsels strongly against enjoining the transfer of the Ft. Devens immigration detainees. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Field Office
11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 12 of 18
Director Bruce E. Chadbourne has given his declaration analyzing the foreseeable results of an order enjoining the planned orderly transfer of the Ft. Devens detainees. See Attachment A, Declaration of Field Office Director Bruce Chadbourne, ¶¶ 10-16.
Director Chadbourne points out that the operational plan is to progressively reduce the immigration detainee population at Ft. Devens over two or three days by the daily transportation on scheduled U.S. Marshal Service JPATS flights. Id., ¶ 6. However, in the judgment of Director Chadbourne -- whose responsibilities include oversight of all detention and removal operations by ICE in Massachusetts, id., ¶ 2 -- an unplanned interruption of the JPATS flights transferring the aliens to their removal hearing destinations “would very seriously disrupt the operational mission and possibly affect the operational security necessary to control a detained population in a non-correctional dormitory setting such as exists at Ft.
Moreover, any interruption in the orderly planned transfer of the immigration detainees out of Ft. Devens “would increase the continuing detainee population at Ft. Devens beyond what has been planned for in terms of available ICE officers to provide the necessary operational security for the alien detainee population itself and for the ICE agents on site.” Id. In this connection, Director Chadbourne has indicated that although efforts might be attempted to adjust the planned progressive drawn-down of ICE officer presence commensurate with the reduction of the immigration detainee population, “it is uncertain whether such eleventh-hour efforts at logistics changes would be successful in maintaining adequate security and operation control of the detained alien population at Ft. Devens.” Id., ¶ 13.
In fact, because the U.S. Army troop dormitory accommodations for the immigration detainees at Ft. Devens are essentially residential and not correctional in design, a much greater
12

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 13 of 18
security presence of ICE officers is required to maintain operation control of the immigration detainee population in this setting. Id., ¶ 14. The end result of any “back up” in the Ft. Devens immigration detainee population caused by any injunction against their JPATS transportation to removal hearing locations, would be pressure on the remaining ICE officer corps and, in the judgment of Field Office Director Chadbourne: “the lack of sufficient ICE security personnel at Ft. Devens is a distinct possibility as a result of any order preventing the planned orderly transfer of the Ft. Devens detainees, and it is a possibility that could jeopardize the safety of both the detainees and the remaining available security personnel on site.” Id., ¶ 14.
The hardship to the non-movant, the government in this case, if an injunction is issued is therefore far greater than any arguable hardship to the movant if the injunction is not issued. Either way, the movant is entitled to removal hearings before an Immigration Judge upon an administrative record at which he may present evidence and apply for any available relief from removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1) (“An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.”). If ordered removed after administrative hearings, movant may appeal that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(a) (2006)(“Decisions of Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals as authorized by [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b) (providing BIA appellate jurisdiction from decisions of Immigration Judges in exclusion, deportation, and removal cases)]”. If dissatisfied with any result from the BIA, he may seek judicial review at the circuit court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(1) (directing that “[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”), and 1252(b)(2) (prescribing venue in review of a removal order, “[t]he petition for review shall be filed with the court of
13

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 14 of 18
appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.”). If specific Petitioners complain that their removal proceedings will not be conducted in
Massachusetts and that relevant good cause exists for their removal proceedings to be held in a location other than where their cases are administratively initiated by ICE after transfer from Ft. Devens, they enjoy the administrative remedy of moving for change of venue before the Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (2006) (Immigration Judge “for good cause, may change venue only upon motion by one of the parties”). But cf. Latu v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 1012, 1019 (10th Cir. 2004) (court holding that district court lacked habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) to hear claim of alien habeas petitioner challenging INS decision to commence removal proceedings in one state rather than another, because “[petitioner] “cannot allege a constitutional or legal right to have removal proceedings against him commenced in a particular place -- that decision is left to the unfettered discretion of the attorney general.”).
Finally, if specific Petitioners believe they should be released from ICE custody, they may apply for a redetermination of custody status before an Immigration Judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(a) (2006). If Petitioners are unhappy with any custody redetermination by the Immigration Judge, they may appeal that decision to the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(a) (2006)(“Decisions of Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals as authorized by [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(7) (providing BIA appellate jurisdiction from decisions of Immigration Judges “relating to bond, parole, or detention of an alien”)]”).
As opposed to the location neutrality of the applicable statutory and regulatory rights enjoyed by movant in removal proceedings, an injunction against transfer of the immigration detainees from Ft. Devens “would very seriously disrupt the operational mission and possibly
14

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 15 of 18
affect the operational security necessary to control a detained population in a non-correctional dormitory setting such as exists at Ft. Devens.” See Attachment A, Declaration of Field Office Director Brice E. Chadbourne, ¶ 11.
Accordingly, the “balance of relevant impositions” to the parties tips very strongly against issuance of the injunction in this case. Esso Standard Oil Co. (P. R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d at 17-18.
D. The Issuance of An Injunction Would Operate Against Public Interest. The effect of an injunction against transfer of the Ft. Devens detainees by scheduled JPATS would seriously operate against the public interest. Approximately 600 ICE agents from across the region and the United States traveled to Massachusetts to assist in the success of the operation. See Attachment A, Declaration of Field Office Director Brice E. Chadbourne, ¶ 8. A substantial operational commitment of ICE personnel at the destination of the transfer flights is also in place to receive and process the transferees at the destination location of those scheduled flights. Id. Enjoining the scheduled JPATS flight transfer of the Ft. Devens immigration detainees would very seriously disrupt the operational mission and possibly affect the operational security necessary to control a detained population in a non-correctional dormitory setting such as exists at Ft. Devens. Id., ¶ 11. Disruption of the scheduled transfer flights would have the effect of stranding the immigration detainees at Ft. Devens, with the result that there would be insufficient time and resources available to process the immigration detainees for other detention locations before today’s Thursday, March 8, 2007, close-of business deadline dictated by the U.S. Army
15

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 16 of 18
command at Ft. Devens for cessation of all ICE operations and vacation of all ICE immigration detainees from Ft. Devens. Id., ¶ 15. The U.S. Army has scheduled Army personnel to occupy the same dormitory units the immigration detainees are now leaving, beginning Friday, March 9, 2007. Id.
The foreseeable result of the issuance of an injunction disrupting the scheduled JPATS transfer flights then “would be the forced unplanned release back into the community of detained aliens identified as removable from the United States.” Id. Because such an unplanned and forced released of the Ft. Devens immigration detainees would necessarily be done without the normal individualized flight risk assessment for releasable aliens, “it is likely that many of the released immigration detainees would then abscond from ICE supervision to find renewed unlawful employment in new locations elsewhere.” Id., ¶ 16.
The effect on the public interest of issuance of an injunction disrupting the scheduled JPATS transfer flights, then, would be to defeat an important enforcement mission of ICE generally and the very goal of the New Bedford worksite enforcement operation mission in particular: the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States by identification of illegal aliens unlawfully employed in the United States, and the referral of those aliens into removal proceedings. See id., ¶ 16.
The very significant expenditure of public funds involved in the New Bedford worksite enforcement operation by the commitment of some 600 Federal agents and associated operational materiel locally and more at the destination locations of the scheduled JPATS flights, and the very significant public interest in the enforcement of the immigration statutes written by Congress, would be frustrated or wasted by issuance of an injunction resulting in the unplanned
16

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 17 of 18

forced release of apprehended unlawfully employed illegal aliens back into the interior of the

United States.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, because Petitioners have failed in their burden of establishing that this

Court has jurisdiction over their claims and that the four factors for injunctive relief operate in

their favor, the Court should deny the requested injunction. Nieves-Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353

F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003).

Respectfully submitted,

By their attorneys,

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN United States Attorney

/s/ Frank J. Crowley By: Frank J.Crowley
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Dated: 8 March 2007

/s/ Barbara Healy Smith Barbara Healy Smith Assistant U.S. Attorney John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 (617) 748-3100

17

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 4-1 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on March 8, 2007, I served upon Petitioners counsel in open court the a copy of the Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and that a corrected copy of this document will be filed March 9, 2007, through the ECF system and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).:
/s/ Barbara Healy Smith Barbara Healy Smith Assistant United States Attorney
18

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 5 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-10471-RGS
CARLOS ENRIQUE AVILA SANDOVAL, the Consul of Guatemala, as NEXT FRIEND of THREE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY NEW BEDFORD IMMIGRANT WORKERS (a.k.a JOHN/JANE DOE ##1-350)
v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States
ORDER
March 9, 2007
STEARNS, D.J.
After an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, the
court will ORDER as follows.
1. In reliance on the government’s representation, the court orders that no further
transfers of detainees who remain within the jurisdiction of the court take place without
prior notice to the court.
2. The court further orders that no restrictions other than those incident to the
normal rules of custody be placed on access by these detainees to such counsel as they
may engage.

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 5 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
3. The court encourages the Department of Social Services (DSS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue to work cooperatively to resolve any remaining issues involving minor children who have been separated from their sole parentcaretakers.
4. The court orders DSS and ICE, in the spirit of Secretary Myers’ March 8, 2007 letter to Governor Patrick, to report to the court by the close of business, Tuesday, March 13, 2007, the status of any cases involving minor children that remain unresolved.
4. The court will give counsel who have entered appearances on behalf of the detainees until the close of business, Tuesday, March 13, 2007, to: (a) demonstrate the standing of the Consul General of Guatemala to prosecute this action on behalf of persons with whom he has no known relationship and who for the most part are not citizens of Guatemala; or (b) substitute as parties named individuals who have agreed to be represented by counsel now before the court.
5. The court will give counsel until the close of business, Tuesday, March 13, 2007, to brief the issue of the court’s jurisdiction, if any, over detainees who are not being held in custody within this district.
6. Government counsel will have until the close of business, Thursday, March 15, 2007, to reply to any such filings.
SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 5 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 3 of 3 3

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 31 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-10471-RGS
NOLBERTA AQUILAR, et al.
v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States
ORDER ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY
April 6, 2007
STEARNS, D.J.
After a hearing held this day, the Court ORDERS as follows.
(1) Respondents will provide petitioners’ counsel with a list identifying those
persons by name and location who are detained outside of the District of Massachusetts
and who have been scheduled for voluntary removal.
(2) Respondents will permit petitioners’ counsel access to any detainee who has
presently agreed to voluntary removal who wishes to consult with an attorney regarding
his or her legal status prior to removal.
(3) Petitioners’ counsel will make themselves immediately available for such
consultations as are desired at the facilities where such persons are presently detained.

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 31 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 2 of 2 (4) This order will expire within ten (10) days of today’s date. (5) This order does not apply to any detainee who is under an order of removal
issued prior to March 6, 2007, as the review of such orders lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
(6) Respondents will reply to petitioners’ request for additional discovery by the close of business, Thursday, April 12, 2007.
SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-10471-RGS
NOLBERTA AQUILAR, et al.
v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
May 7, 2007
STEARNS, D.J.
On March 6, 2007, agents of the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Division (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arrested
several hundred undocumented aliens who were employed at Michael Bianco, Inc. (Bianco), a leather goods factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts.1 Most of those detained
were taken to a holding facility at Ft. Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts. Within forty-eight
hours, 210 of the detainees were flown from Massachusetts to detention centers in
Harlingen and El Paso, Texas.
On March 8, 2007, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, the Consul General of
Guatemala, acting as “next friend” of the detainees, filed a petition for writ of habeas
1ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS. Through ICE, DHS enforces the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 12
corpus seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting any further transfers of the detainees.2 The Complaint asserted violations of the detainees’ rights under United States laws and the Constitution. The Complaint also alleged that the transfers to holding centers in remote areas of Texas impeded the detainees’ right of access to counsel and opportunity to obtain conditional release on bond. Respondents now move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND On March 6, 2007, hundreds of ICE agents took part in “Operation United Front” in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Their target was Bianco, a Department of Defense subcontractor alleged to employ large numbers of illegal immigrants. The agents executed a search warrant and arrested five Bianco managers for violations of the immigration laws. During the sweep, some 360 Bianco employees were taken into custody. Dozens were quickly released when they were determined to be minors or lawful residents of the United States. The remainder were transported to Ft. Devens. Complications quickly arose. In planning the sweep, ICE “took steps to determine whether arrestees had minor dependents” and had asked the assistance of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) in “address[ing] any issues of unattended children.”3 The coordination with DSS, however, proved inadequate. DSS caseworkers who arrived at Ft. Devens on the evening of March 7, 2007, were initially
2The Amended Complaint lists by name 178 detainees who seek standing as coplaintiffs.
3Thirty-five detainees were released immediately after ICE determined that they had “pressing humanitarian needs, such as being a sole caregiver or illness.”
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 3 of 12
denied access to the detainees.4 They were permitted to interview those detainees who had requested DSS intervention only after a group of ninety detainees had been flown to an ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) center in Harlingen, Texas.5 Caseworkers were eventually able to interview forty detainees. DSS requested that twenty-six of these detainees be released because of child care issues or medical complications.6
Shortly after 4:00 p.m. on the afternoon of March 8, 2007, Sandoval filed this action. He requested an emergency hearing on the motion for a TRO. Approximately an hour after the lawsuit was filed, a group of 116 detainees was flown to a DRO holding facility in El Paso, Texas.7 This court convened a hearing on Sandoval’s motion at 5:45 p.m. Counsel for the government agreed that no further transfers would take place before a hearing scheduled by the court for noon the following day.
At the March 9, 2007 hearing, the court heard testimony from Susan Getman, a DSS Deputy Commissioner, regarding the logistical difficulties and failed communications that
4Earlier that day, a group of volunteer lawyers, law students, and paralegals who volunteered their services to the detainees were also turned away from Ft. Devens. The following day they were permitted to meet with thirty detainees who had requested legal advice.
5The group of detainees was comprised of sixty-four Guatemalans, fifteen Hondurans, six Brazilians, three Cape Verdeans, and two Mexican citizens. The following morning, three juvenile detainees were flown to Miami, Florida, and one “adult and juvenile family unit” was taken to Leesport, Pennsylvania.
6Twenty-one of the twenty-six detainees on whose behalf DSS interceded were released by ICE over the next two days.
7This group of detainees consisted of eighty-eight Guatemalans, twenty-two Hondurans, three Mexicans, one Portuguese, and one Ecuadorian.
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 4 of 12
had resulted in some minor children being stranded without adult supervision. She also
testified about DSS’s frustration at the lack of adequate warning and an opportunity to
investigate the detainees’ needs. Petitioners’ counsel accused ICE of transferring the
detainees to Texas as part of a deliberate strategy to defeat the jurisdiction of the court,
to deny access to counsel, and to make it more difficult for the detainees to obtain release
on bond. Respondents argued that the detainees had been transferred from
Massachusetts because of a shortage of bed space. They also contended that the
detainees would receive the same procedural protections in immigration proceedings in Texas as they would in Massachusetts.8
Immediately after the hearing, the court issued a TRO barring any further out-ofstate transfers without prior notice to the court.9 The court ordered that no undue
restrictions be placed on the detainees’ access to counsel. The court also directed ICE
and DSS to work collaboratively to resolve any remaining issues involving unattended minor children and to file a Status Report with the court on or before March 13, 2007.10
8On March 13, 2007, as part of the court-ordered Status Report, respondents submitted an affidavit of Robert Jolicoeur, the ICE Field Office Director in El Paso. According to Jolicouer, the 116 detainees transferred from Ft. Devens on March 8, 2007, were provided with written contact information in Spanish and English for the New Bedford DSS office. Jolicoeur also stated that he had attended a briefing (conducted in Spanish), during which the detainees were asked for assistance in verifying whether their minor children were being cared for by an adult. The detainees were also asked if they had legal counsel and were given a list of three local legal service providers and free telephone use.
9Ninety detainees were still being held in Massachusetts. 10On March 10, 2007, despite some initial friction, DSS caseworkers sent from Massachusetts were permitted to meet with the Texas detainees to explore outstanding child care and medical issues. Following the interviews, DSS recommended the release of eleven detainees; ICE released three for “humanitarian” reasons. On Sunday, March
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 5 of 12
The court then entered a briefing schedule limited to the issue of its jurisdiction.
On March 13, 2007, petitioners filed the Amended Class Petition. On March 16,
2007, petitioners filed an emergency motion asking that the court enjoin all removal
proceedings in Texas pending a resolution of the jurisdictional issues. The court held a
hearing on the motion that afternoon. At the hearing, respondents represented that ICE
intended to remove only those aliens who were the subject of final removal orders entered prior to March 6, 2007. Consequently, the court denied petitioners’ request for a TRO.11
The court held a status conference on March 21, 2007. Petitioners requested leave
to conduct limited discovery on jurisdictional issues. The court permitted petitioners to
take the deposition of Bruce Chadbourne on an expedited basis and scheduled a hearing and briefing schedule on respondents’ motion to dismiss.12
On March 23, 2007, respondents filed a notice of their intent to deport detainees
otherwise covered by the court’s TRO who had agreed to voluntary deportation after
waiving their right to appeal a final order of removal. On March 28, 2007, petitioners
11, 2007, DSS provided ICE with the names of an additional thirty-two detainees who were recommended for release. DSS also gave ICE the names of thirty-four detainees who had requested legal assistance. On March 12, 2007, ICE agreed to release nine of the Texas detainees. (DSS withdrew two requests). ICE also promised that it would continue to review the requests. The following day, March 13, 2007, additional releases took place and another request was withdrawn, although at least four cases remained in dispute.
11Sixty-six detainees (fifty being held in Massachusetts, ten in El Paso, and six in Harlingen) were affected.
12Despite the order limiting discovery to the expedited deposition of Chadbourne, petitioners issued Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices to ICE, DHS, DSS, and the Department of Justice. On April 2, 2007, respondents moved to quash. On April 3, 2007, the court allowed the motion. In response, on April 4, 2007, petitioners filed a motion seeking additional jurisdictional discovery.
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 6 of 12
moved for a TRO seeking to enjoin respondents from executing final removal orders for any of these detainees. Petitioners maintained that many of the detainees who had agreed to voluntary removal had been intimidated or coerced into waiving their right to a full hearing. On April 6, 2007, the court heard argument on the motion as well as on a motion filed by petitioners for additional discovery “to establish habeas jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs in detention in Port Isabel/Harlingen, Texas.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered respondents to provide petitioners’ counsel with the identities and locations of the detainees scheduled for voluntary removal and to permit petitioners’ counsel to meet with any detainees who wished to consult an attorney regarding his or her legal rights.
On April 19, 2007, the court held a hearing on respondents’ motion to dismiss, petitioners’ motion for further discovery, and petitioners’ request that the April 6, 2007 TRO be extended pending the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. Petitioners’ counsel also reported that pursuant to the court’s order of April 6, 2007, they had interviewed seventyfive detainees in Texas whom ICE had identified as having agreed to voluntary removal. Of these detainees, fifty-four stated that they had not knowingly and voluntarily waived their rights. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered an order staying the removal of any of the non-Massachusetts detainees who now wished to contest deportation.13 On May 2, 2007, the parties completed the briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The motion is now ripe.
13The stay as originally entered was of twelve days’ duration. On May 2, 2007, the court extended the stay at petitioners’ request pending issuance of this opinion.
6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 7 of 12
DISCUSSION Petitioners fall into three classes: (1) the ninety detainees who were transported to Harlingen, Texas, before the lawsuit was filed;14 (2) the 116 detainees who were moved to El Paso, Texas, after the filing of the suit;15 and (3) the ninety detainees who remained in Massachusetts after the court issued the TRO halting any further transfers. Although the Amended Complaint is broadly framed, the immediate relief sought affects only the first two classes of detainees. It is important to a resolution of the instant motion to understand precisely what is being claimed by both sides. That in turn requires a brief explication of recent amendments to the INA stripping the courts of jurisdiction to review enforcement actions undertaken by the Attorney General. In 2005, Congress - frustrated by persistent delays resulting from legal challenges to orders of removal - passed the REAL ID Act (RIDA), Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B., 119 Stat. 302 (2005). RIDA limits the habeas jurisdiction of the district courts in immigration cases. It also strips the courts of subject matter jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions of the Attorney General and the Secretary of DHS.16 Under RIDA, the Courts
14As to this group of detainees, the court lacks in personam jurisdiction over their “immediate custodian,” the Director of the DRO center in Harlingen, Texas. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004) (“[T]he immediate custodian, not a supervisory official who exercises legal control, is the proper respondent.”).
15As to this group, respondents concede that the court retains in personam jurisdiction.
16RIDA specifically excepted challenges to matters involving “pure” detention from its divestiture of district court habeas jurisdictions. See Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42-43 (1st Cir. 2005). Petitioners do not, however, contest the legality of their arrests and detention.
7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 8 of 12
of Appeals now have original subject matter jurisdiction over “all questions of law and fact,
including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising
from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States,”
and respecting “any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision
or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute
removal orders against any alien under this [INA].” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9)17 and 1252(g).18
RIDA further amended section 1252(a)(2)(B) to read as follows.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or otherwise) . . . and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review – . . . (ii) any . . . decision or action of the Attorney General of the Secretary of
17As amended by RIDA, section 1252(b)(9) reads:
Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact.
18Section 1252(g) reads:
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 9 of 12
Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under [U.S.C. §§ 1151-1381] to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under [certain asylum provisions].
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Among these discretionary decisions is the determination
whether to grant bond or parole, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e),19 and the selection by the Attorney
General of “appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a
decision on removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1). See Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 863
(9th Cir. 1985).20
Sensitive to these restrictions on the jurisdiction of the district court to review their
statutory and constitutional claims, petitioners have recharacterized the claims as alleging
a collective denial of secured rights that are incidental to, rather than an integral part of,
the removal process.
Because the amendments to the INA made by RIDA apply only to challenges to removal orders, they unquestionably do not strip this Court of jurisdiction over this case. Petitioners’ claims do not involve challenges to removal orders but rather concern the violation of their statutory and constitutional rights caused by the pattern and practice of Respondents' deliberate conduct concerning Petitioners’ transfer to and detention in Texas. Specifically, Petitioners allege, inter alia: that Respondents seized Petitioners with the
19Section 1226(e) reads: “The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.”
20Petitioners argue that the word “appropriate” implies something less than the investing of “pure” discretion in the Attorney General and therefore provides an opening for judicial review. While circumstances might be envisioned in which the Attorney General’s decision was so lacking in rationality as to invite judicial intervention, one would think that courts are ordinarily not well equipped to make decisions about the allocation of bed space in the immigration system. See Van Dinh v. Reno, 197 F.3d 427, 433 (10th Cir. 1999).
9

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 10 of 12
intention of promptly transferring them to isolated locations where Respondents knew, or should have known, that Petitioners could not effectively exercise their rights, (Am. Compl. at ¶ 10), that during Petitioners’ detention in Fort Devens Respondents restricted access to counsel, (id. at ¶ ¶ 14-16), that Respondents did not coordinate with the Department of Social Services to assess and address issues concerning the welfare of Petitioners’ children and families and allow Petitioners to make meaningful decisions concerning the care of their children, (id. at ¶ ¶ 22-25, 49, 51), that Respondents’ en masse transfer of Petitioners to remote locations in Texas has resulted in their inability to retain counsel, and certainly counsel of their choice, (id. at ¶ ¶ 20, 26, 49), that Petitioners’ restricted access to counsel has prevented them from obtaining advice concerning potential grounds for asylum or other forms of relief (id. at ¶ ¶ 14, 28), and that the transfer [of] Petitioners to Texas has severely prejudiced their ability to demonstrate ties to the community and otherwise present evidence on their behalf in bond hearings. (Id. at ¶ 50).
Petitioners’ Sur-Reply, at 8-9.
Assuming these allegations to be true, the Amended Complaint fails to link
respondents’ “pattern and practice” to any constitutional or statutory violation that is ripe
for review.21 There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a removal proceeding.
Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 1997). The “privilege” is rather a statutory one
permitting a detainee to retain counsel at his or her own expense. 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(b)(4)(A). There is also no constitutional right to release on bond while removal
proceedings are pending. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003). Nor do petitioners
cite, nor is the court aware of, any constitutional right to have a removal hearing held in
a specific venue. Cf. Vasquez, 233 F.3d at 696 (“categorically” rejecting the proposition
21The court is not persuaded by the petitioners’ attempt to recast the bulk of their claims as something other than a challenge to the removal proceedings (a matter which, as petitioners concede, is vested exclusively in the Courts of Appeals). The heart of the Amended Complaint is addressed to alleged violations of the petitioners’ rights resulting from the manner in which the removal process is being conducted in their individual and collective circumstances.
10

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 11 of 12
that a “more favorable legal climate” in the First Circuit constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying a change of venue). The Amended Complaint, in other words, fails to identify any constitutional right inhering to petitioners as a class that would justify the extraordinary relief that they seek – an order directing that they be returned as a group to Massachusetts for removal proceedings.
This is not to say that petitioners have no rights. They are entitled to certain enumerated statutory protections, as well as to the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. These rights, however, are personal to the petitioners. If protected rights have been, or will be, violated in the removal proceedings underway in Texas, individual petitioners are required by law to exhaust their administrative remedies by presenting their claims to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and, if relief is denied, to the appropriate Court of Appeals, as Congress has willed it. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(d)(1) and 1252(b)(9). See also Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirming the exhaustion requirement with respect to due process claims); Sayyah v. Farquharson, 382 F.3d 20, 28 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming the authority of the BIA to correct errors in immigration court proceedings).
ORDER For the foregoing reasons, respondents’ motion to dismiss is ALLOWED as the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.22 The stay of removals entered on May 2,
22The court is not persuaded otherwise by the two supplemental cases submitted by petitioners after the close of briefing, Nnadika v. Attorney General, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 1227474, C.A. 3, Apr. 27, 2007 (No. 05-3915), and Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1228792, C.A. 1, Apr. 27, 2007 (No. 06-1947). In Nnadika, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals remanded so much of the transferred case as involved the
11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 58 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 12 of 12 2007, will be EXTENDED for twenty-one (21) days to permit petitioners to seek a further enlargement of the stay from the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
refusal of the Attorney General to grant an I-730 asylee petition with instructions that the district court consider the government’s argument that review was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In Royal Siam, a case involving the refusal to grant an H-1B visa petition, the First Circuit, while noting that “the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of section 1252 apply outside the removal context,” found it prudential to bypass the jurisdictional question given the lack of merit to the appeal.
12

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 18

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-181.9
NOLBERTA AGC:ILAR 2T AL.,
?etit~oners, Appellants,
v.
8:\ITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTO!-lS ENFORCEMENT C:':VISIO:\ OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL.,
Respondents, Appellees.
A??EAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Ron. chard G. s::earns, U.S. District Jcdge]
Be::'ore
Boudin, Chief Judge, Selya, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Heward, Circuit Judae.
Bernard C. Bor.n. ;;;~:;: and Harvey Kaolan, w~th whom "ichael t'latthe;.; M. Lyons, .Dechert LLP, Kaplan. 0' Sullivan & Eriednan, Nancy Kelly, John willshire, Greater Boston Lecal Servs., John Reinstein, Laura Rotolo, AcTericar: Civil Liberties Fourdation of !>lass., Io-is Gomez, :V:ass. Law Reform ::r:st., Ondine sn;ffin, and Catholic Social Servs. of Fall River were on brief, ::or itione::-s. Thomas E. Dupree. Jr., Deputy Assistant At::orney General, with ;.;hom Peter D. Ke' sler, Assistant Atto:cney Ger:eral, Danie.:. J. Davis, Counse:C to the Assistant Attorney General, David J. Kline, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Immigration =..itigation, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Attorney, Office of Immigratior: Litigation, Michael J. Sullivan, United States l'.ttorr:ey, and Mark Grady, Assistant United States Attorney, were on bri , for respondents.

November

~4
L I1

2007

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 18

SELYA, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal has its ger:esis

a drar:~at:ic :-aid on a leather goods facto:-y in New Bedford,

Massachuset::s. Er:forcement of the

laws is diffict.:it

a:'ld oftentimes controversi wo:-k. So was here: the ra led to

the dete:1tior: of hur:d:-eds of u!'document:ed aliens ar:d put

signi ca!'t strains on

e involved and those who wished to help.

In sho:-t orde:-, the detainees (many of whom were whisked away to

distant places) brought a civil act~on alleging abridgeme~t of a

cons~ at:ion of cor:stitutional and statutory righ::s.

Confronted wit:h a maze of issues, the district court

patiently sorted through them and, in a thought

rescri

eventual.ly di ssed the action for want of subject matter

jurisciict

Aau~lar v. U.S. ll'nl7liqr. & Custo:rcs Enf. Div. of Den't

of .Hom,eland Sec., 490

Supp. 2d 42, 48 (D. Hass. 2007). 'The

(whom we sometir:~es shall refer to as ''the petitioners")

now challe:1ge that ukase. Their appeal ses novel and important

ques ons concerning the scope, reach, and ir:terpretation of the

immigration laws. In pa:-t ar, it requires us to disentangle the

Gordian knot of jurisdictional provisions created by recent

amendments to the Immigration and Nationali Act (INA).

We discern no simple, one-size-fits-all answer to U:e

questions

ented by the parties. A::ter ca:-eful perscrutation of

a scumbled record, we cone} ude tha:: some of

pet:'_ Uoners' cl

are unpreserved, some are s~bject to a juris ctional bar, and

-2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 18

others are simply not actionable. The corr.:non denominator s that

none of

claims can proceed in the dist ct court. Thus, while

our reasoning differs some~1hat from that of the court below and

our opinion should not be read as an unqualified endorsement of the

way in which immigration officials handled the matter we af rm

the judgment of di ssal.

tale follows.

I .

We rehearse here only those facts needed to place this

appeal in workable perspective. On Marcl"l 6, 2007, federal officers

conducted a raid as part of "Operation United Front." The raid

targeted Michael Bianco, Inc., a Department of Defense contractor

suspected of employing

numbers of illega.:. aliens.

Immigration and C.1stoms Enforcement (ICE) agents, armed Hith search

and arrest warrants, appeared unannounced at

factory, arrested

five execut

on immigration-related crimina: charges, and took

more than 300 rank-and- le employees into custody for

ICE agents cast a Hide net and paid

little att.ention to the detainees' individual or family

rcumstances.

The government's Sllbsequent actions regard::.ng the

undocumented workers Hho were swept up in the net 1::.e at the

epicenter of this litigat

After releasing dozens of employees

determined ther to be minors or to be legally residing in the

U:1i ted States, ICE transported the remaining detainees to Fort

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 4 of 18

Devens (a ho::.ding facL.ity in Ayer, Massachusetts). Citing a

shor~age of available bed space in Massachusetts, ICE then began

trar,sferring substantial numbers o::: aliens to faraway detention and

remova::. operations centers (DROs) . For examp:Ce, on Maret: 7, 90

inees were ::"lawn to a DRO in Harli:1gen, 'l'exas, and the next day

116 more were f_ow:I to a DRO i:-1 ~1 Paso, Texas.
rr" attempted to ::oordinate its oaneuvers w'.. tt: the

Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) to ensu::e the

proper care of _ 1 y :-r:embers. : t too~ steps ~o add::ess ::on::erns

about ::hi wel::"are and released several detainees for huma:1i tar'..an

reasons. Stil:, the petitioners allege (and, for present purposes,

we

that IC~ gave socia:C we' fare agencies i:1sufficient

ce of the raid, that casewor~ers were denied a::cess to

detainees until after the first group had been transferred, and

that

ous IC~ actions temporari:y thwarted any effective

investigatio:-1 into the detainees' needs.

As a result, a

substantial nuwber of the detainees' minor ildren were le:t for

varying periods of time without adult supervisio:1.

With respect to the detai:1ees

e::.ves,

petitioners

aver that ICE inhibited their exercise o: the right to counsel.

Accordi:1g to tt:e petitioners, a squad of volu:1teer lawyers who had

o::ered to provide the detainees with guidance •t~as turned away from

Fort Devens 0:1 March 7. The next day, the lawyers were allowed ~o

meet with those detainees (some thirty number) who had exp

y

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 5 of 18

requested egal advice.

The pet ioners allege that,

notwithstand~ng this la~gesse, some detainees were denied access to

counsel after t

arrived in Texas.

0~ the afternoon of March 8, the G~atemalan consu2.,

ac~ing as next friend of the detainees (many of when were

Guatemalan nationals), led a

ition for a writ of habeas corpus

and a conplai.r-t for declaratory and injunctive relief in

:..:nited

States

Cou~t for

of Massachusec:t:s. The

action sought the detainees' immediate ~elease or, in the

alternative, a tempora~y restraining order halting fu~ther

transfers. The dist

co'Jrt enjoined ICE from noving any of the

remaining detainees o'JC: of Massach'Jsetts pending further orde~ of

~he court.

On March 13, the pc.aintiffs filed a11 amended complaint,

ioned as a class action, and w~thdrew their ea for immediate

release. The amended complaint naned ICE and va~ious other fede~al

ager-

and actors as respondents (for ease in exposition, we

sometimes refer to the defendants, collective:y, as •IcE• or •the

government•). In that: pleading, the petitioners alleged

ICE's

actions had violated certain of the petitioners' cons tutional and

statutory rights, including: (i) the ght to be free from

arbit:rary, prolonged, and indefinite detention; (ii) the right to

a prompt bond hearing, tha~ is, one held in Massachusetts prior to

any c:ransfer; (iii) the right ~o counsel; and (iv) the right of

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 6 of 18

family integri~y. The a:Lended complaint Ltrther alleged that it

was "the established policy a~d practice of the [governmen~] to

co~duct large scale 'sweeps' or 'raids' in which large numbers of

persons suspected of being unlawfully present in the U~ited States"

are held "at facili es which are so:rce distance from

site of

arrest and u!lder condi t:'.ons where access to counsel

is

impracticable, if not impossible."

On March :6, the government filed an omnibus motion to

smiss

want of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and

for failure to s~ate any claim upon which relief might be granted.

In due course, the district court allowed the mot:'.on to dismiss on

the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Agu'lar,

490 F. S"clpp. 2d at 48. The court also dissolved the temporary

res~raining order that it previously had issued.

The linchpin of ~he lower court's decision was its

conclusion that the INA, as amended by the REAL ID Ace of 2805,

Pub. L. No. l09-l3, 12.9 Stat. 231, 302, stripped it of both habeas

and federal question j sdiction to hear the

~ione~s' claims.

Aguilar, 490 F. S"clpp. 2d at 46, 48 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b) (9));

at 47-48 (citing 8 :::'.S.C. § 1252 (a) :21 (B) (ii)). In its

rescr~pt, the court

ected the petitioners' attempted re-

characterization of their remonstrances as patte.!:'n and practice

aims, that

claims alleging a collective denial of rights

collateral to removal proceedings. Id. at 48. In that regard, the

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 7 of 18

cou:::t concluded that the

tione:::s had failed to link these

s-wide pa:::cern and practice claims to any specific

constitutional violation that might be :::ipe for review. Id.

The dist:::ict court paid specia: heed ::o the absence of

any Sixth .Z\mendment ght :-.o co·J_nsel in removal proceedings,

absecce of any ccnstitutional right to release on bond, and the

absence

any constitutional right to have a removal proceeding

he:Cd in a

icular ven·ue. Id. And while acknowledging that the

peti ~ oners were entitled to the

process guarantees of the

fth Amendment as well as ::o certain statutory pro:cections, the

riot court concluded that these righ:cs were personal to the

petitioners and, as such, had to be exhac;sted adminis:c vely

before the courts could becone involved. Id~

This ::inely appeal ensued. In it,

petitioners assign

error to the lower court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter

jurisdicticn over

claims and relatedly, to

conclusion

that the petitioners are only ent ed :o j udicia2. review or. an

individualized

is after exhaus:::ing thei- administrative

remedies. Clverall, the petitioners urge us to hold that -::hey have

stated cognizable claims that are ripe fer j cial review and that

their ac:ion should, therefo::e, be allowed to p::oceed in the

di

ct court.

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 8 of 18

II.

Consc~ous of our role as a court of limited jurisdiction,

we begin our ana:ysis with the multi-part question of whether and

to what extent the strict court possessed

ect matter

jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' aims.

v.

Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998); BeL v.
Hood, 327 u.s. 678, 682 (1946). We then turn to the surviving

clai:ns.

We review a district court's dismissal for want of

subject natter j sdiction de novo. See,

Doninion Energy

Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson, 443 F.3d 12, 16 (lst

2006) .

For that purpose, we give weight

the well-pleaded factual

aver:n,ents the operative pleading (here, the pe:::itio::1ers' amended

oonplaint: and i::1dulge every reasonab::..e inference in the pleader's

favor.

Muftiz-R'vera v. United States, 326 F.3d 8, ll (lst Cir.

2CC3). l'Jhere, however, those facts are illuminated, supplemented,

or even contradicted by other materials in the district court

record, we need not cor.fine our ·Jrisdictional inquiry to the

pleadings, but may consider those other mater~als. 1 See J.S. ex

·This seems an appropriate place to mention ::hat, before oral

argumer.t

this court, the government moved to supplenent the

record with cop~es of orders from immigraccion judges awarding

contim:ances, changes of ver.ue, and other ancillary rel

to

several of

petitioners. 1\e grar:t the motion. .zo,:_ though we

general limit appellate consideration to the record before the

dis":rict court, this subrr.ission comes within an excep-:ion to the

·Jsual rule because we may take j udicia2. notice of the p::-offered

orders.

e.g., Fornali::C v. Perryman, 223 F.3d 523, 529 (7th

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 9 of 18

rel. N.S. v. A-:::ica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107, llC (2d Cir. 2004);

Gonzalez v. Uni-:ed States, 284 F. 3d 281, 288 (lst: Cir. 2002). Our

solution to -:he jurisdictional puzzle may be original, that is, we

may affirm an order of dismissal on any ground made apparent by the

record (\-lhether or not relied upon by

lower COG rt) .

InterGen N.V. v. Gr'na, 344 F.3d 134, 141 :1st Cir. 2CC3).

A.

The petitioners contend that the district coc:t possessed

ect matter j urisdict:'.on over

r cla:'.ms pursuant to the

general grant ot federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

and the sc:atutory grant ot habeas corpus jurisdiction, id. § 22 41.

In outlining

s contention, they concede t21at Congress, in

enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (9), attempted to direct challenges to

removal through defined administrative channels. '::'hey argue,

however, that their claims lie beyond

reach of this channeling

statute.

Delineating the precise ambit of section 1252 (b) (9) calls

for an exercise in statutory construc;:ior:. Th~s, our starting

poir:t is C:he statutory text. See Richardson v. United States, 526

CiY. 20CC) (taking j·.Idicial noLce ot INS actions); see also Fed.
R. Evid. 201 advisory committee note (sta;:ing that judie notice may be taken or: appeal). As we explain later in this opinion, the orders are highly relevant to a determination of whether the pet:'. tioners have an adequate forum in which to present their
c~aims.,
-9-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 10 of 18

:.;.s. 813, 816 (1999); Fed. Refj,n. Co. v. Klock, 352 F.3d 16, 25

(1st Cir. 2003).

Section 1252 (b) (9) is en;;i;;led ucor:solida:::.ion of

questions for judicial

ew." It reads in

inent part:

Judicial review of all ques-

of law and

fact, including in

ation and application

of cons-:=i tutic:lal and s~atuto:::y provisions,

arising from any actio:1 taken or proceeding

brought to remove an alien from the :Jnited

States

shall be available only in

judicial review of a final order under -

sectio::l. Except as

rwise provided i:1 this

sectio:1, no court shall have juri ction, by

habeas corpus under Section 22~1 of le 28,

or any other habeas corpus provision . . or

by any otr.er provision of law (statutory or

nonstatu::cry), ::o

eh' such ar:: order or such

q..1est

of la"' or fact.

The Supreme Court has described this provision as a ngeneral

jurisdictional limitation" and as "an unmistakable 'zipper'

clause." E&ill..Q v.

525 u.s. L.71, 482-

83 (::.999). By its terms, ::he prevision encompasses "all ques:.ior::s

of la1·1 and fact" and extends to both "constitutional and statutory"

challenges. Its expanse is brea::htaking.

Congress's purpose in enacti:-~g section 1252(b) (9) is

evident. As i~s text makes

fest, that proviso Has designed to

conso:

a:1d channel revieh' of

legal and factual questions

that arise from U:e removal of an alien i:1to the administrative

process, Hith judicia::. revieh' those decisior::s vested exclusively

i:1 the cour:.s of appeals. See 8 :J.S.C. § 1252 (a) (5) (ordair::ing

that ''a petition for review filed Hith a:1 appropria::e court of

-10-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 11 of 18

appeals . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial

review of an order of removal"). In er.acting section 1252 (b) (9),

Congress plainly intended to put an end to the scattershot and

piecemeal nature of the review process that previously had held

sway in regard to removal proceedings. See H.R. Rep. No. 109-72,

at 174 (2005) (Conf. Rep.),

299.

While paying lip service to the breadth and purpose

section 1232 (b) (9), the

itioners endeavor to avoid its

st otures by reading section 1252 (b) (9) narrowly as stripping

district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to ongoing removal

proceedings - nothing more. On this

s, the

itioners olaim

the district court's habeas ~urisdiction remains ir.tact for

particular removal proceeding. That is wishful thinking; as we

explain belo1·1, s:.Jch a construct belies the statute's ain meaning

and runs contrary to Congress's discernible intent.

Undocumented aliens cannot escape the vise-like

of

sect:.on 1252 (b) :9J by the simple expedient of banding together

claims cons:.gned by law to administrative channels, declining to

se them within the a:rbi t of removal proceedings per se, a:1d

mair.taining that those unexhausted claims do not implicate a

particular removal determination. The reach of section 1252 (b) ( 9)

is not limited to challenges to singular orders of remova: or to

-1::.-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 12 of 18

removal proceedi

simpl ::er. By its ter:r.s, the provision a1ms

to consolidate "all questions of law and fact" that "arise from"

either an "action'' or a ''proceeding'' brough~ in connec~ion with the

removal of an al

See 8 U.S. C. § 1252 (b) (9). Importantly,

stat·c~te channels federal court jurisdiction over "such questions of

law a:1d fac::" to ::he courts of appeals a:1d explici;:ly bars all

other methods of judicial review, including habeas. Id.

The ?etitioners cannot skirt ;:he statutory channel

::r,arkers by lumping together a melange of claims associated with

removal, each of which '..;auld be jurisdictionally barred if brought

alone, and eschewing a direct challenge to any

cular remove~

proceeding. Such claim-splitting - p·c~rsuing selec:ced argumen;:s in

the districT: court and leaving o:chers for

udication in the

i:r.1l'nigra":ion court - heralds an obvious 1 oss of efficie:1cy a.:1d

bifurcation o~ review mec~anisms. These are among the pr

ls

Congress sought to avoid through the passage sec:cion

1252 (b) (9). See H.R. Rep. No. 109-72, at 174, reorinted

2J05

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 299. =~ is our task to enfo~ce

sta.~ute as

Congress wrote it, and we reject the peti~ione=s' invitation to

read the statute in a way that would frustrate Congress's

unmistakable purpose.

In a so:r,ewhat rel

vein, the petitioners insist that

the challenged actions occurred prior to the ins tution

any

formal removal proceedings and, thus, are beyond t:-1e compass o':'

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 13 of 18

zlpper clause. Although their factual premise is ur:arguably

correct, their conclusion not; r:othing in the statute liiits its

reach to claims arising from extant removal proceedings. Reading

the statute to l t the exhaustion requirement to claims that

arise ~rom ongoing removal proceed:'.ngs 1vould put an undue prem:'.um

on which party rushed to the courthouse :':irst. More importantly,

s·Jch a reading •t~ould render the word "actio:." superfluo"Js and

effectively

se it from

statute. Yet it is a fami ar canon

of construction t~at, whenever possible, every word and phrase in

a statute should be given feet. See, ~' United States v. Ven-

Fuel. :::nc., 758 ::.2d 741, 751-52 (1st

::.985).

canon

demands our fidelity here.

No:1e of

s is

imp~y t'Jat sectiorc 12 (b) ( 9) is

limitless in s scope. The words "arising from" do r:ot- 1.end

themselves to precise application, see ~iroshi Motomura, Judic'al

Review in Irr::mi gratior: Cases A:"ter PJ\DC: Lessons from Civil

Procedure, 14 Geo~

gr. ~.J. 385, 424 (200D), and courts have

debated the.'..r meaning in other settings, see .'-iJJJnphries v. Vario"Js

?ed. US~NS P::rplovees, 164 F.3d 936, 943 (5 Cir. 1999) (collecti:1g

cases). 0:1e thing is clear, however: those words are

infinitely elastic. Cf. LouisviHe & Nashv'"e R.R. v. Mottlev,

2ll c;.S. 149, 152 (1908) ("amously reading the analogous term

"arising under" more narrowly than plaic mea:1ing might sugges~) .

~ii respect to sectioc 1252 (b) (9), these words cacr:ot be read to

-13-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 14 of 18

swallow all cla

c:hat might somehow touch upo'i, or De traced

the government's efforts to remove an al::._en.

To us, Cong:ressts choice of nhrase suggesc:s tha:: it did

not intend section 1252 (b) ( 9) t:o sweep within its scope claims with

only a rerEo::e or attenuated connection to the removal of an al' en.

Courts consister:tly have recognized tb.at the ter:r. "arising from"

requires more than a weak or tenuous connection to a

ggering

ever:t. See, e.a., Franchise Tax 3d. v. Cor:str. Laborers Vacation

465 u.s.

2 7 r:. 32 (1983); Humphries, 164 F.3d at 943;

Pizarro v. Hote:es Cocorde Int'l, C.A., 907 F.2d 1256, 1259 (lst

r. 1990).

Furthermore, if Congress had ir:tended to accomplisb. so

far-reaching a result,

could have used broader language.

McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496 :1991)

(suggesting that if Cor:gress ir.tendea a cer::air. provision of the

INA c:o be read more expansively, it could have used more expar:sive

language) . For example, Congress would have used the term "related

to" instead of "arising from."

Humphries, 164 F.3d at 943

(sugges~ing that '1related to'' signi

a somewhat looser nexus

than ''a=ising fron'').

Such a bounded readir:g of c:he statute is a:so suggested

by the fact that certain c:aims are excluded from c:he sweep of

sectior: 1252 ;b) (9) by virtue of legislative intent and judicia:

precedent. To illustrat:e, the legislative history indica::es that

-14

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 15 of 18

Cor.gress intended to create an exception for aims "indepe:1dent"

of removal. H.R. Rep. No. 109-72, a-: 175, as reprin:,ed in 2005

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 300. Tt:us, when i:, passed -:he REAL I D Act,

Congress stated unequivocally that the channeling provisions of

sec-:ion l252(b) (9) should not be read -:o preclude "habeas review

over

lenges to detention." Id. ~indicatir.g that deter:tion

clains are "independent challenges to removal orders"). In line

with this prescription, we have held that distric:: courts re:Cain

jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the

immigration context.

He:::-n2mdez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42

(1st

. 2005) (holding

_ detention claims are ~ndeper.der:.t of

removal proceedings and, thus, not barred by section 1252 (b) (9) I.

This carve-out seemingly encompasses consti t·utional ct:allenges

regarding tt:e ava~lability

bail. See, ~' Demore v.

538

u.s. 510,

(20C3).

There is no reason to believe that section l252(b) (9) 's

exception for independent claims is restricted to those related to

de::ention. Cf. Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d 1145, 1156-57 (9th Cir.

2006) (s·Jggesting t'1at the broad jurisdict::.on-st:cipp::.ng provisions

of 8 U.S.C. § l252(gl de not foreclose aliens'

ims for money

damages under the doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown NaBed Aaents of

the Federal B~:ceau of Narcotics, 403 ~.S. 388, 389 (1971)), After

all, section 1252 (b) (9) is a judicial channeling provision, not a

-15-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 16 of 18

aim-barring one. The provision, where applicable, only requi.res

exhaustion of administrative procedures and the consolidation of

claims for judicial review.

We say "where applicable" because removal proceedings are

co:1fined to dec:errr:ining whether a part lar alien sho·Jld be

deported.

id. § l229a (c) (1) (P,). While legal and factual

issues relating to c:hac: question can be raised

removal

proceedings and ever:tually bro:Jght to the court of appeals for

judicial review, certain c:aims, by reason

the nat~re of the

right asserted, cannot be raised efficacious:y within c:he

administrative proceedings delineated in the INA.

McNary, 498 U.S. at 496; Jupiter v. Ashcrofc:, 396 :C.3d 487, 492

(.:.St Cir. 2085). Requi ng the exhaustion of

se clai:rcs would

foreclose them from any meaningf~l j~dicia: review.

Giver.

Congress's clear intention to channel, rather than bar, ~udicia:

review ::hrough the mechanism. of section J.2 (b) (9), reading

''a=ising from'' as

in that statu::e to encompass those claiTI'.S

would be perverse.

We ::hus read the words "

ing from" in section

1252 (b) (9) to exclude claims t'lat are independent of, or whol:y

"Congress :ccnows how ::o bar claims in

imnigration context

when it desires ::o do so. See, e.a., 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g) (2)

(dec:.aring that "no court shall l":ave jurisdiction ::o hear any cause

or claim by or on beha:.f of any alien arising from the decision or

action by the At ·~orney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate

cases, or execute removal orders'').

-16-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 17 of 18

collateral to, the rerroval process. 1\mong others, claims that

can:1ot: effecc:ively be hand::.ed through the available admi:1istrative

p:!:"ocess

l within that purview. This ~eadi~g, we believe, is

consistent w::.th the wise pres:.1mption that Congress :egislates with

knOI,:edge of longstanding rules of statutory construction. See

McNarv, 498 U.S. at 496. That presumption traditionally requires

that there be clear and convincing evide:1ce of l

before restricting access to judicial review entirely. See, ~.

Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. l36, 141 (1967).

This holding fi t.s comfort:ably with trad:'. tional legal

principles. CoJrts :ong have recogr.i zed an exception to the

exhaustion requirenent "'or

aims that are collat:eral to

administrative proceedings. See, ~. 3owen v. City of New York,

476 U.S. 467, 482-83 (1986); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 330

(1976) ~ In that regard, courts have been most willing to deere

claims ''collateral'' whe~ requiring exhaustion would ''~oreclose all

meaniLgful judicial review~" Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510
U.S. 200, 212-13 (1994); see Leedom v. Kyne, 8 u.s. 184, 190

(1938) (upholding injunction against agency action when petitioners

lacked any other mear.s to protect or enforce

r rights) .

As a further reflection of this same attitude, courts

have demonstrated a particular '"wstility toward requiring

exhaustion when adequate rel f could not feasibly be obtained

through the prescribeO: administrative proceedings.

-17-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 67 Filed 11/28/07 Page 18 of 18
Mathe~1s, 424 U.S. at 331. That hostility also manifests itself wher: a party wot;ld be "irreparably injt;red" by adhere:'lce to an exhaustion requirement. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 483.
B. Against this backdrop, we now turn to the question of whether section 1252(b) (9) requires administrative exhaustion of
o= some or all the petitioners' claims. We deal sequentially with
the petitioners' assert~ons about their constitutional ght to be free frorr. harsh and inhumane conditions of con=inement, t:heir assertions anent the right to counsel, and their assertions concerning the right to fa:Lily integrity. We subsurr.e in these discussions the petitioners' attempt to package their offerings as class-wide pattern and practice suits.
We need not linger long ever the conditions-ofconfinement clairr.s. \~e assurr.e, for argument:'s sake, that claims challenging the conditions of an alien's detention are ir:dependent o£ removal proceedings. Cf. Hernandez, 424 F. 3d at 42 (holding that the REAL ID Act does not bar claims that merely challenge the ler:gth of ar: alien's detention). Here, however, the conditions-ofconfir:ement clairr.s were not raised below. That is a significant omission. "If any prir:ciple is set"':.led in this circuitr it is that, absent: the most ext:raordinary circumstances, legal thee es not c:aised squarely in tile lower court cannot be broached for the
~st time on appeal." Teamsters..._____cha:Jffeurs, Warehouse:cer: &

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

NOLBERTA AGUILAR, SEBASTIAN AGUILAR, TERESA )

AGUILAR, DIEGO AJPOP; 174 additional named

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs listed on Schedule A attached to Amended )

Complaint; and others similarly situated,

)

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

)

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT

)

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary ofHomeland Security for hnmigration

)

and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE, Field

)

Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field

)

Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL

)

CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security;

)

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General ofthe United

)

States; PETER DEL ANGEL, Officer in Charge ofthe Port

)

Isabel Detention Center; MICHAEL A. WATK.INS, Assistant )

Field Office Director for Detention & Removal Operations,

)

Harlingen Resident Office, Immigration and Customs

)

Enforcement; and MARC MOORE Field Office Director, San )

Antonio Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. )

)

Respondents/Defendants.

)

CA No. 07-10471
EMERGENCY HEARING REQUESTED

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs/Petitioners (''Petitioners") respectfully move for an immediate bearing and a
temporary restraining order enjoining Respondents/Defendants ("Respondents") from executing final removal orders for 113 Petitioners in Texas and Massachusetts.1 As grounds for their

On Friday, March 23, 2007, Respondents filed a Notice of Intent to Execute Removal Orders (Docket No.
21) (''Notice") in which they stated that 66 Petitioners in Massachusetts will be deported pursuant to removal orders
issued prior to March 6, 2007, and 57 Petitioners have "voluntarily" agreed to waive any right to appeal their final

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 11
motion, Petitioners submit herewith preliminary evidence demonstrating that the Petitioners facing removal have accepted removal orders in the absence of their right to counsel and have not knowingly or voluntarily waived-and, in some instances, may have been coerced into waiving- their right to appeal the removal orders. Petitioners thus request a temporary stay of the removal orders to provide counsel for Petitioners the opportunity to advise Petitioners oftheir rights and assess whether their acceptance of removal orders was in fact voluntary.
Additionally, pursuant to this Court's March 21, 2007 order, Petitioners move to compel discovery pertaining to the jurisdictionally-relevant issue of bad faith. In its order, the Court granted Petitioners' request for jurisdictional discovery and ordered that the deposition of Respondent Chadbourne be taken on an expedited basis. Accordingly, Petitioners have noticed Respondent Chadbourne's deposition and have additionally requested documents and noticed depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) concerning issues relevant to bad faith. Respondents have taken an overly-narrow view of the Court's order and refused all discovery except Respondent Chadbourne's deposition. Although Petitioner's counsel has repeatedly offered to reach some accommodation on discovery, counsel for Respondents is unwilling to alter its position. Petitioners therefore respectfully request that the Court compel Respondents to provide discovery critical to Petitioners' attempt to demonstrate bad faith for jurisdictional purposes.
Argument In the Amended Complaint, Petitioners have alleged that they have been detained and transferred in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights, including, inter alia, their right to counsel of their choice and their right to present evidence on their own behalf. Pre-
orders ofremoval. Respondents did not seek permission of this Court to execute the removal orders, but instead merely stated their intention to do so.
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 11

discovery, preliminary investigation of the circumstances surrounding Petitioners detention and
transfer-despite extremely restricted access to information concerning Petitioners and to
Petitioners themselves-strongly supports these allegations and has revealed that Petitioners may
be being coerced into signing documents and unknowingly waiving rights. For example, the
husband ofone ofPetitioners reported that his wife called him and explained the circumstances
in which she signed an agreement to be "voluntarily'' removed:
She told me that all of the women who are being held [in the El Paso Service Processing Center] were awoken on Monday morning and taken in to a room. The officials of the detention center demanded that the women sign a paper. The paper was a deportation order and the officials yelled at the women that if they did not sign it, they would be considered criminals who did not want to leave the country. She told me that almost all of the women signed the forms, including herself. My wife was crying very upset and afraid, and told me that she does not want to be deported and separated from her family.

(See March 27, 2007 Aff. of Marco Arita, attached hereto as Exhibit B?) Other reports by Petitioners indicate that Respondents have engaged in a consistent
pattern ofdenying access to counsel to Petitioners and failing to inform them of their statutory rights:

I was told to sign documents that were written in English. The officers did not
read these documents to me in Spanish. The officer told me that I had to sign this paper, and that it related to my getting a lawyer. I now understand that what I signed was a documenting [sic] requesting an expedited hearing, waiving my right to a 10 day period before appearing before an Immigration Judge. I did not know
this at that time, and would not have signed this document has I known what it was.

(See March 20, 2007 Aff. of Benjamin Luis-Garcia, at ,! 13, attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
Another Petitioner has stated:

I was never told about my right to a bond hearing. Immigration officers never told me anything about my eligibility for a bond while I was detained. Until today, I did not even know that there was such a thing as a bond.

2

Attached as Exhibit A is an affidavit from John Willshire explaining the circumstances in which the

affidavits attached as Exhibits B-F were obtained.

3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 11
(See March 27, 2007 Aff. of Juan De La Cruz Rodriguez, at~ 15, attached hereto as Exhibit D.)
Even where a Petitioner was able to resist agreeing to voluntary removal, her statements
make clear that the process the government is not seeking informed consent and is trying to dupe
Petitioners into waiving their rights:
Then I went into a room where an officer was at a table with papers. He showed me a paper and said that I had rights, and there was a place with small boxes to be checked offif I wanted to go before a judge or ifI agreed to be deported and agreed that I bad no fear of returning to my country. He then showed me that a box had already been checked off next to the part where one agrees to be deported and proceeded to state that obviously, since I already agreed to being deported that I bad no fear of returning to El Salvador. He next stated to me that since I had already agreed to this, I should just initial the box that had been checked off. Having never agreed to that, I immediately responded that I wanted to go before a judge. I also told him that I bad never agreed to being deported. I asked him to erase that X. He asked me if I was sure and allowed me to initial the box asking for a hearing. I explained that I had a small child.
(See March 27, 2007Aff. of Sonia Quintanilla-Palacios, at~ 17, attached hereto as Exhibit E.)
Another Petitioner indicated that requests to use a telephone have been routinely denied.
(See March 27, 2007 Aff. of Karla Guerra, at~ 8, attached hereto as Exhibit F ("Although I
asked to use the telephone, I was never allowed to. I remember many worried parents asking to
make calls, and they were also denied.")).
As counsel for Petitioners have previously represented to the Court through anecdotal
evidence, Respondents have consistently and repeatedly posed significant restrictions and
limitations on access to Petitioners by counsel. In a recent order in a separate immigration
matter pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the court
found that Respondent ICE has interfered with detainees' right to access counsel:
The Court is troubled by the evidence presented at yesterday's hearing, in particular by the evidence that Plaintiffs' access to private consultation with their attorneys is severely limited. Hutto is a detention facility, not a penitentiary. Even in a penitentiary, lawyers can see their clients privately. Whatever the
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 11
inconvenience may be to ICE, CCA, or any other organization in the alphabet soup responsible for the Hutto facility, this Court finds it hard to imagine a legitimate reason for rules giving immigrant detainees fewer rights to counsel than federal felons. Emptage v. Chertoff, No. 07-CV-00165-SS (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2007) (order removing restrictions on attorney visits) (attached hereto as Exhibit G). Similarly here, counsel for Petitioners have not had adequate information about or access to Petitioners to advise them of their rights or assess whether they have knowingly and voluntarily waived their rights. Even when Petitioners are represented by counsel, it appears that Respondents may be interfering with Petitioners' right to counsel and constitutional and statutory rights. (See March 27, 2007 Letter from Rebecca Cazabon to Consul General Roxana Abrego, attached hereto as Exhibit H). Counsel for Petitioners made a request to counsel for Respondents that Respondents temporarily stay the execution of removal proceedings identified in their filing, provide a full list of Petitioners in Texas, and allow counsel access to Petitioners. Counsel for Respondents refused to stay proceedings or provide a list and stated that "[i]fan individual detainee requests access to identified counsel, DHS has provided, and will provide such access at the facilities where detainees are currently housed, subject to the normal limitations of a detention setting." (See March 27, 2007 email from Elizabeth Stevens to Bernard Bonn, attached as Exhibit I). Petitioners have been transported over 2000 miles from their places of residence and have no way of knowing who is available or willing to provide them with legal services. Permitting Petitioners access only to legal counsel that they must specifically identify but have no way of knowing are even available renders the right to counsel empty. Allowing a briefstay ofthe contemplated removal proceedings would ensure that any individual who is removed pursuant to a waiver of appeal has knowingly and voluntarily
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 11
accepted the removal order and would not harm Respondents in any identifiable way. Conversely, ifthe removal is allowed to proceed as planned and any individuals are removed involuntarily, there would be certain and irreparable harm. If provided a list of the individuals intended to be removed and adequate access to them, counsel for Petitioners are willing to travel immediately to Texas to speak to those individuals and assess whether they have knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to appeal.
Additionally, Petitioners have filed with Chieflmmigration Judge David Neal a motion to rescind any "in absentia removal orders, in Washington D.C. That filing entitles Petitioners to an automatic 30-day stay of proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(S)(C)(ii), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). (See March 26, 2007 Letter to Chief Judge Neal from Harvey Kaplan, Nancy Kelly, and John Wilshire, with enclosures, attached hereto as Exhibit J). A stay by this Court pending resolution ofthat motion would prevent Respondents from removing Petitioners before the automatic statutory stay can be put into place.3
Finally, Petitioners last week served discovery requests on Respondents related to the jurisdictional issue relating to bad faith that is currently before the Court. Respondents indicated that they will not respond to those requests and intend only to comply with the portion of the Court's order allowing the deposition of Respondent Chadbourne which is scheduled for Friday, March 30, 2007. Petitioners read this Court's March 21 order as allowing discovery relating to jurisdiction, including but not limited to the expedited deposition of Respondent Chadbourne. At a minimum, the deposition ofRespondent Chadbourne requires the prior production ofrelevant documents for Petitioners to have a meaningful opportunity to question Respondent Chadbourne
A court-ordered stay would permit an orderly BIA adjudication of the emergency motion filed on behalf of an entire group and avoid the risk that Respondents might opt to remove some ofthe Petitioners based on an interpretation of the mandatory stay provision that would deny its applicability in these circumstances, which have necessitated counsels' filing of the group motion without all the individualized documentation Respondents' practices have prevented counsel from obtaining on short notice.
6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 11
on bad-faith-related issues. Such discovery is clearly allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure given Petitioners' prima facie showing of bad faith, and Petitioners merely seeking such discovery on an expedited basis given the obvious urgency of the case. To the extent Respondents contend the requested discovery is too broad, counsel for Petitioners has repeatedly offered to negotiate the scope of the discovery requests and try to reach a compromise. Counsel for Respondents, however, has adamantly refused to consider any discovery other than the Chadbourne deposition.
Relief Requested WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant an immediate emergency hearing and enter an order: (a) Granting their Motion to Compel Discovery and entering a Temporary Restraining Order; (b) Enjoining Respondents from executing any removal orders for a 10 day period; (c) Ordering Respondents to provide immediately to Petitioners a list identifying all individuals detained in the March 6, 2007 raid, their current location, and the status ofany bond determination or removal hearings; (d) Requiring Respondents to allow counsel for Petitioners access to individuals for whom Respondents intend to execute removal orders, without restrictions on the number of individuals who can be seen in a given day or other undue restrictions; and
7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 11

(e) Granting Petitioners such other and further relief as is just and proper.

Dated: March 28, 2007

Counsel for Petitioners,
Is/ Bernard 1. Bonn. ill
Bernard J. Bonn, lll (BBO #049140) Michael Shin (BBO #658134) Matthew M. Lyons (BB0#657685) DECHERTLLP
tb
200 Clarendon Street, 27 Floor Boston, MA, 02116 (617) 728-7100
Nancy Kelly (BBO #44562) John Willshire (BBO #547200) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend St. Boston, MA 02114 (617) 371-1234
Iris Gomez MASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE 99 Chauncy St., Suite 500 Boston, MA 02111 (617) 357-0700
Harvey Kaplan (BBO #258640) KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN AND FRlEDMAN Ten Winthrop Square Boston, MA 02110 (617) 482-4500
Michael P. Boudett (BBO #558757) Jennifer Starn (BBO #663709) FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2600 (617) 832-1000
John Reinstein (BBO #416120) Laura R6tolo (BBO #665247)
8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 9 of 11 AMERICAN CIVIL LillERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETIS 211 Congress St. Boston, MA 02110 (617) 482-3170 Ondine Sniffin (BBO #638899) Catholic Social Services ofFall River, Inc. 1600 Bay St. Fall River, MA 02724 (508) 674-4681
9

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 10 of 11
LOCAL RULE 7.1 (A)(2) CERTIFICATION Counsel for Petitioners certifies that he has attempted to confer with counsel for Respondents in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the issues presented by this Motion, but has been unable to reach Respondents' counsel.
Is/ Bernard J. Bonn, ill
Bernard J. Bonn, III March 28, 2007
10

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22 Filed 03/28/07 Page 11 of 11 Certificate of Service
I, Bernard J. Bonn, III, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice ofElectronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on March 28, 2007.
Is/ Bernard J. Bonn, III Bernard J. Bonn, ill
686732.2.ADMINISTRATION
11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 66
Exhibit A

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 66

DECLARATION OF JOHN WILLSHIRE

I, John E. Willshire, hereby state and depose:

I . My name is John E. Willshire.

2. 1am an attorney employed by Greater Boston Legal Services and the Clinical Program of Harvard Law School.
3. I am counsel of record in Aguilar v USICE, Civil Action No. 07-10471-RGS.

4. The attached affidavits of Benjamin Luis-Garcia, Karla Guerra, Sonia Quintani\laPalacios, Juana De LA Cruz Rodriguez are being offered to provide the court with information concerning their treatment during their arrest and detention by U.S. lmmigration and Customs Enforcement during and after the raid on the Bianco factory in early March. There statements were taken by myselfand other lawyers and students affiliated with our program, with the assistance of Catholic Social Services in New
Bedford.

5. The statement of Mr. Marco Alta is being offered to provide the Court with information
conveyed to a family member concerning the treatment of detainees in El Paso, Texas. This statement was taken by Catholic Social Services in New Bedford. Over the last week, I have received several calls from family and friends of persons being detained in
Texas, particularly in El Paso, in which they have similarly infonned me that they are
very concerned for their family members who are being coerced into waiving their rights
and accepting removal.

I, John E. Willshire, hereby state this 27'11 dayffMarch, 2007 in Boston, Ma"sachusetts
__ that the above statement is true and correct to the best'~fjY inf~l!!ion..an~_belief. ,/ ------·-·-······ ·(i\L_ \~~1

~

Jol)n E. Willshire

"·--...

I

-. ··.......)

--- -----

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 66
Exhibit B

Case 1:07-cv-10s4e7e19-8R4G1S667Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07sePaa9g9e4 416o6f766 P. 02

Affidavit of Marco Arita
I hereby declare that the information below is truthful and to the best ofmy knowledge.
On Monday, March 27. at IO:OOam, my Jife partner and mocher of my five
children, Maria del Carmen Villera caned me from EJ Paso Service
Processing Co1ter. She told me that all of the women who are being held there were awoken on Monday morning and taken in to a room. The ofticials of the detention center demanded that the women sign a paper. The paper was a deportation order and the officials yelled at the women that if they did not sign it, they would be cotlsidered criminals who did not want to leave the country. She told me that almost all ofthe women signed the fonns, including herself. My wife was (.:rying very upset and afraid, and told me that she does not want to be deported and separated from her family.
J, Marco Arita, on March 27,2007, 1n New Bedford, Massachusetts, hereby state that the above statement h~s been read to me from the English language to the Spanish language, and 1t i~ rmc and correct to the best of my infom1aticn and belief.

signature
date
I, Monica Gomery, hereby state that I am fluent in the English Md Spanish languages, and that I have translated the above statement to the affiant to the best of my ability.

signature

3/17 I ~D.P_,__7_ _

date

'

TOTAL P.02

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 66
Exhibit C

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 66
Affidavit of Benjamin Luh-Garda
I, Benjamin Luis-Gnrc:i~ state 31ld depose as t'dlloM;
1. l was hom M Augu~t 28, 1985. I wa:; detained on Milfch 6, 2007 by lmmibrration and
Cus:t(lms Enfi.m:ernent in New Bedford. MA. I was released on March 13. 2()('f/on my own
~(lgnlZilJlCC.
2. "f arrived at work rhe n1oming ofTuesday, March 6, 2007. as ~aL Sometim.e aJOI.lnd S:30 AM, we heard a11 anJluunctm~ent that we !ihowd all tum off our machines amJ !>iay ~till. Someon~ yelled chat immigrution officers were in the facility, afld the workers began to punic.:. There was complete cha.ns a.'i bundrc=tl~ of otncer.;. !iwanned into the tadlity. The workers were in such a pWJk, that 1 cou.Jd hardly move a few feet without rtmili!'l~ into another pmL1n. When an officer approached me, 1was gJabbcd by my wri~ts for<:d'ully, and WIIS patroo duwn. The officer then quCSCioned me afNut my documents.
3. I wa1> ha11dcuffcd with my anns in front of m~. I ~w other individual~ in. h~nd<:uft$ with their wrists behind thcir back l witnessed one penon ncar me RSk the officer to loosen tht: h.andcutl's l)«lUS<: he was in pain. Th~ officer rqlli~ that he didn't cart! if he was in pain. I
was told l~&t~::r that the offi~"t'S had also bn)ught in du~.
4. Our cell phones W(rC cont1scat~ \luting this pro~:5~. so we were unable to communicate
with our fsmilics a.~ to \~nat wlJ$ lu&ppening. I asked if I could use a phone, but was told that since I was arre.-<llec.l. [ Qould not we my cell phone. I was a.lso told that there were no olhc:r tc:lephones I coutd use.
5. By l :OOPM~ many ofus wer~ h1Jngry because we had been there since b~tbre 8:00AM. Whc.n some ofthe worker!\ bejjan to ask about food, the offi~ers told them they would simp1y have to b~ with it, and that 1t wa..-.n't the officers' problem that they were hungry.
6. We waited in liM ftmn 9:00AM to nppro:.timatdy 2:00PM when we fin3.1ly boarded a bus. Tt took a very long lime t(n· the ~,ffic:ers !o board nil the wo~:ke~ Ol1TO the: blls. 1remember
waiting two hours nr so after I boarded the bus until We were ready to l~vc. 1did not koow
~tt this time where I was ~oing. illl.d was not told by 3ny immigration officer where they wa-e taking us.
7. Aft~ we were all on h.Ja.rd, we were given food. The food was largely dists...qt~fu], consisting
of a sandwich thut hild frozen. among other things, hut l ate it because rwas hungry. Wr;
were not allow~ to remove nur handcuffs while eating.
8. Upon our arrival to the detention tacibty at apprull.imate;:ly 5;00 PM, wruch I now k.now to bt
called Fort Devens, we: were taken to a. large cold room wbercour shoes were taken. We
wen~ g}ven substitute ~hnes that did not fit. ·nw shoes wore very 1~ and many ofus
rec.1:ived two ~hoe!t ,,fthe sante foot. We were fore~ to walk in !'ets of three, ow- hand~

J ,:;;.·~

Jqq1 I?R~ ~!!"'I

c0'd ~991 P85 80S

699 I P85 80S

:j.W~ LS:~ !002-92-~W
tt:vt ~~-9c-~~w

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 66

connected to one anoth~:r. Wt we~:e mad~ tu wait thr nee1dy tive hours il'l thi~ cold room until they were reacly to intervic:w Uli.

Processiar,llnttniew

9. /\Iter. what s«med like severat hours, we: were taken to a large room wh<:re w~ were interviewed and ftntcrprintC(]. I h~htve it wa.o:: aoout 10:00 PM at this time. 1was fing~rprintod, but apparently, my fingerprint did nut pmpt:rly register in the computer. lhe officers had to take my fingeiJirillt numerous times, oometimeli with t()~, until the computer could read my tin~Tlt. Tht: llffi~ers told me tbat my fillget w~sn't" wufking.••

10. The offic'-TS tvld me l had a right to a lawyer. but continued interviewing me. Questions I can n:membcr the offic:c.cs aslcing me included when f wa.~ born. where J was bom, a.od the names nrmy parents. They asked me about entry into th£ country, and whether I had been uuuht by immigration befoc~. They didn't nsk me as many q~rion~ a.t~ they Mkcd others s~c: they confinned that 1bad no prior immigration history.

J L

t aMwered the officers' questions ~U$e I felt I had no other choice. l beH~vcd l might be

mistreated one ofthe

ifi rdused to rulSWcr the offiC(.:rs' que.~tions. J I~Jt this workc:n betbte n'lt in line telling the nfticer that he did

way partly
n't want tu

because I hea~d
sisn anything.

When he said this, rhe offit.'t!!" tulcl this worker that be had to l>ign r~ papas, or else he would

be t3ken ''someplace else."' At that moment, 1understood tbis to be a threat ofharm. I

irnasined that if! refused to respond to the officers• qu~tions, Ttoo might be taken

"som~taee el~~e" where 1 imagined 1miB)l.t be be:t.tcn.

12. I was told to sign docwntmls t'hat were written in English. The officers did not read these
dCicumcnts to me mSpani~h. The officer told me 1had to sign this paper. and thnt it retated
ta my getting a lawyer. I now undmtand that what 1sjsocd was :1 docwnen~ing requeating an expedited hearing. wu.iving my right to a I0 day period before appearing before an Immigration Judge. (did not know this at rhat time, and would not have signed this
doc::um~nt had t known what it was.

\3. l beru-d other thend:i 1lfmi.ne express their ~onctrn that they didn't know wmt they had just
signed and wccc wt"lTrietl that they may have just signed their own dcportatioo documents.
11wllglxlut this proces.-~, l was not told by the immigration oftlctcs that we would be moved.
I was not rold anything about the possibility of band or 3 b()nd hearing.

Uetention F'~ility Treatmeat
14. Aft~:r the interview, we were all transponcd to a large room with a cement floor that we shared with approximately forty t~rhers. The room was very <:olu, with no bed!i or blmtkets. I could m,,t sleep given conditions of that room. Once in this room, we were prohibited from talking to on~ ant">ther as wtU.

2

J r } "rl

J99t ~86 Q0S :01

£0"d ~991 v85 s0s

L.9'3l vss oos

: t.()lli LS:oo La0a-9Z-~
l1:v1 ~00Z-9Z-~~

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 66

l S. At that point in time. J clid nnt l<ni.lW wht;lrt: Twas or where r would be ~ir\g. No one had told
me during. my interview that I mighl be tn&nsferred. 1only lcam.:d, from officers who wc:re guarding CJI.'f room later that night. that we would be movtt~ thoLJgh they did not specifY the
lo(ation.
16. I W3.<; finally u\1"1wt:d to make a phone call tbelt night on a '-"elJ\1\ar phone provided to me by one ufthe guards. l ca!Jed rny father. However, our convct'$3l'ion was ~I.Jt off atler rwo minutes. While (he Qfficcrs had told rnc I Cl~uld t'lnd i'l lawyer, Ido not undmtand how it would have been pos~ible for me to locate a lawyer in the amount of time they allowed us to \lSe the telephone.
17. At nppro"imatcly 6:00AM, w~ were t:.lkcm out of that mnm into another lllrge room with (VCU more workers. The room was also one with a <:ement tloor and no hed5. I was exhausted. r am not sure why we were taken to th.is larger room.
IS. At ap[)r()ximatdy l :00 PM on Wcdnesday ~ftcmooo, we were taken to a room where
cvtryum: was ~he~kcd by a doctor. We were al~ asked to sign papers. ThU time. I undE:"r~1ood tbe pa~ to be an opportunity to write down all the property that had bc:cm taken frmn me by inunigratiort in~luding my ~~11 phone and money.
19. It wasn't until Wednesday aftcnlMn that we were finally brought t() roruns with beds. Unfcutunately, we were not able lc) !:leep at that point either. The <>nictrs who stood guard
!.lUtside ofour roo~ laughed and tal'ked :so loudly thut it was impossible t() sleep.
Treaonent During Tr~m:fer
20. At this pn1nt, J'K) one had told me that we would be rr3.11Sported to Texas on Ihur:sd~y morning. At approximately 9:00AM <.>n Thursday morning. we were ordered to hoard a hus.. Tile weather was u.nbt:atr.thly cold, and the long boarding process was very difficult for"~ We waited on The bu$1'\>r twu huurs, and then oddly, were asked to get ofrthe hus a~in. We were told to go back to o-ur r()(lm~ dt ttri11 time.
21. When we were told [O go back tn our rooms, r, along with two otbP:IS, w~e askec.ltn go and
dean dtc bathroom :md ~weep lht: donnitory tloor:s. Tdid as 1was asked. und hu~d that my e41mpliance with thi:! rcque:>t mi~ht sht1rtc:n my stay in the detention facility. Trcm"~~ber rhc Mftcers laughed at u.c: a.. w~ f:lc:-.med the bathrOQIJlB, I f~lt humiliated by this. and real b~ed that they had simply asked us to do their work and had no intention ofrclc:asing us from detcnt1on S<loner.
22. At approxin1ately l :00 PM. we re-hoardcd the hu~. We were in hundcutl$ and our legs were ~hained, so it was difticulr for us ro hm:ml th~ bus. The oftic.:~rs seemed to be \n a great deal t)f buoy and screamed at us tor taking too long. f finally Jcatned where we were going fuun other friend.-; who told me that we were being moved to Texas.
3

, .~·~

JQQT ~~~ RAC:nl

P0'd L99l P85 80£

:1-JO~ BS:80 LOOC!-92-~ ? 1 : 171 1.1111;'1?-q?-;>.lHI.I

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 9 of 66

23. When we arrived ut an airport, two immigration officers boarded the bus. One bad ulist of name.'\ with him. Both officers had batons in their hand. Theyheld these bau>ns with their anns mltSltt:tched. On~ oftheoffi'ers in the bus stood ncar a trash can. He :said, "If you don't behave wdl. .." and th<:n kicked the tra!lhcan with gr(at force implying to me that they
would not hesitate to kick us if we didn't do as they sllid. As we tle-boarded, tl1c officers
yelled at us calling us ••shit" and tclting us we We1'C worthless. They told us they never wanted to s~ us in their country again, and Ihat we Wt)uld he going hack to o-ur countey very <Juic.:kly.
24. I telt humiliated nnd aftaid w~n the o llicers tn\d 1.1s we were worthies~ and that they wanted
u~ out uf their country.
25. Afta· we got otfthe bus, we wen: tc:d to an ~tir,>lane and were forced tu bolll'<l tht plane very quiclcly. Aga1n, because our hands and legs were bound. it was impossible to board d~ pl.ne as quickly as they wanted us ro do. When we would move ~lower- than they wanred, they would become vt:ty an~ and scream at us.
26. Once aboard the phme,l understood a few words som<: of the c>fficcrs used to describe us in
En£Iish. They said we were: ·"ugly• and "worthless."
27. Given how long tawportilti(')n to the iliy;pott had toik.en. somt: oftb.t wurlc.~-n; had to u.~e the b<athroom once on board t~ plant. They were told that they could not do so until the plune h:Kl to.kcn. otY. J heurd some individu:da uk for medicine f()T the headaches, but rhey were denied this.
28 Wh~n individuals who were bourc.ling the plt~ne had difficulty taking tbetr seats because: of
huw they were bound. the officer~ would push. them witn great force into their s~.
29. Tbeli~e the pbne took otl' at awroximately 6:00PM. We arrived in Texas At approlimately
I1:00 PM on Thursday night, J bc:lieve. Once arriving in Texas, we were taken 10 rooms that
th~&nkfully had beds. The next ~y was spent getting prOCessed for this new facility. We w~re
photographed. J:ivcn brt~Gtlets and uniforms, and once • n examined by a d~dor. TIUi entire proecss took a very long time. 1don•t believe we roccivcd our uniforms until late f'ri(Jay night. Few of us qu~tiontd thc$e processes beCAuse we wcrc so tired. By this point, wt: felt that we simply had tu cc1mply with the rules out of occ:cssity.
30. By tht: time I left, l had n()t s~n any lawye~ in the detention fa<::ility. i heard from olhcr
individuals that their tamilies back in New Boot~)rd, MA were trying to find lawyers. t olso
heard from th~e who had been hefure a judge tllat thcir jud!,l1: had be<:n someone who wali
very me~ to individuals li'kt m}'lic:lt: I teamed that wmc mends had hearings whc:rc imnugratio.n Jlld~s told them they bad t() pay $7SOO.OO in order co bt= released from detention.
31. Peuple felt so desp~ate :111d only favcd tht worsl. Al~er rece;ving new~ that th~r lxmd
would he sn higil, some of my mends clec::idc:d they had no clwice but to sign a document
4

1 , -:-~

JQQT ..~ ~C'!<:::n1

£0'd

~ gg r ~86 se£

'--99l t786 80£

:1Qi:4 ss:ae Looa-92-Mt:M
cl : ~l L00c-9c -~~w

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 10 of 66
agreeing to gu back to their country. I believe they agreed to this in a mom~nt ofcJe..,-p=r.dion
and confusion. To btgin with. like lsaid above, they felt that they had no chance with the judges who were not f8.ir. The: cuurt would never Jist~ to tn~. let alnne hcHeve than. They alw believed that they would nev~ get releused by the 1,:0urt and would remain in detention
for avery long time ifthey dit\n't pay this tnoney. Some fri~nds of mine approached me 13tcr and 3..'11<ed mt: iftbcre was any way they could retract their agreement to go back tu their country. They told me that had they known they could have 3ppealed th4t amount, they wou~d hn"c never Si2!led awa,y thei.t rigtlts. They did uot want to gQ back to tkcir toul\trics. It appeared to me that lhey Wd"e tuo c.werwhelmed or afraid to talk ahuut why they coutdntt or didn't wanr to return. 32. While! was detained i.n El Paso. 3omc soci:tl workers came to visit us th4t Sunday I believe. They told us they were investigating who had young children ~r !lpecial na:ds baclc home. 1
rold th~ social workers that 1 had a very ill tather hack home in New Bedford who was severely d1~ic and needed care. J told the worktr th.M no one <:lse was present at home to
carl! for him since: his entire family had been detained.
33. I do not know if my release was C4)J1necled to this con~ersalion with the social worker, but 1 WllS flown back to New B~ford. MA on March 13, 2007. I have been complying with the terms of my relea~e since that time.
34. Wh~ th~~ immigration officers would s!y things like. '"You're shit,·• or ..You're worthless," or '•Tt' ll be wot'fll it to you it' you tell us th~ truth" or '·You'll tell us your real
name ifyou don't want uny probleart5 with us." it's almost impossible to dist::onncct tllese
litatements from the way people are treated in Guatemala. The language these officers wece using cnrri~ so muuy implicit threats to me. In Guatemala. soldiers and poli~e are ~blc to stop pcoplt! on the :.tr~t wtd demand infonnation. If they don 't respond truthfully or willingly, the officers don't he!itate to heat or even kiU them. 35. llosr sev~ro~l ofmyolder family member:; during th~ war in Guatemala. Tremember w:uchin!; a vid~l once when 1was youngL>r that talked about the war in Gu.atena.l! and
showed individuals h~ng rC~undcd \JP jnto what looked like a mass gra..,.e. The officers were h~ating these individuals c,r pouring gast~line ~n them. forcing rhcm all into this large hole that hod been dug tor them. It horrified me that anyone ooutd treat another as ifthey wcrc.n 't
even human. The lunguage used by the officers, :1~ well a.~ the1r mistreatment o-r u~. while I was dctajned, brought me, and t believe several other.;, back to our knowledge: ofthat history.

90" d

5
:wt'IH-l ~ : m L~h92- aM ? 1 : b> T. ) C!Cii::>-0:::>-~. 1

L0"d ltHOl Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 11 of 66
l, Ht.-nui SMangapani, state this 20'~ dsyofMarch 2007 in Boston. MA that l run fluent in th~ English and Spanish languages a.nd that 1have translattd tile above statement to the affiant, prior to signature, tt'l the b~;M ofmy ability.

l .I • '

tOOT hOC Qlr:;tC•f'\1

L0'd L991 V86 80S

6

L99T V86 80S

:\.Qi.:t B~:BB 1.002-92-~ ~1 :1>'1 l.OOG-9G-Cit:JW

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 12 of 66
Exhibit D

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 13 of 66

OECLA.RA'fJON OJ:o~ JUANA DE LA CRUZ RODRIGUEZ
I, J\UlmL De Lll Cruz Rodriguez, do hereby ~tilt~ the: following; I. My rtame is Juana Rodriguez and Tcurrently live at 872 Southfield St. Apt. #3, inN~
Boot(ml. MA. {am 21 yw.ll Q]d. Ta•u milmcd. hav~ one; three yt,ar old ch.ild, and am the caretalc~ of my minor brother. 2. Until Mar..:.h (i, 2001 I was employed at the Michoel Bianco f41<..'1ory in N('lw Bedford. On 'March 6, 2007, l went to work as usual at 7:JO a.m. l was working thr approximately a b~lf hour when 1beard the secretary over a loudspeakc:t· say. "Shut ofthe machin~s. :~hut off the machines." The secrerary then told people to sit down. f saw people with guns Lhat were dres~ed in blu~ ~hirts iUltl juckets and military pants with mcs:.ks Ovl.'t' th~ir f3ces enter th~ tactmy. At fir!'t l was not sure who these peopt~ were. I tht,ught they might be soldiers. 1did nm understand because l was not doing an)'thing wrong, f w~ jW~t w<\rking. Some of the workers began to run. but th(lse who nm were heaten by the unitlnmed officers. J rcmemocr feeling great tear.
3. The uniformed people began to nrder us to sit d()Wn and :;tay :dill. 't'hcy s&d that they were dte
police. .llater learned that they were nut police but were in tact Immigration and CliStorns Enforcement (l.C..E). One ofthc l.C.E. \)fficcrs immediately bound my hands with plastic. The plastic was very right on my hand!i and began to hurt My hands started to become swollen.
The oftica- rippe(J the elastic from my hair, mn~wiog roy p&>ny tail. He also rook my belt off with great tore~. Th~ ti1r<.-e with wnich they did thi.s caused me pain, .and made me even more afraid. The ofti~crs were yeJJing at w; and if any~Mly spoke they were told tt> be quiet. 1was questioned about my do~mcnts and was <lskcd whether Jhad 311Y brothers or si.ster.t. 4. We wm all ordered to sir on the floor and wait During this time 1wns vezy sc.u-ecl. t did not knuw what wss going to bapptn ro -me. l thought thAt ~hcsc offic\!H would hurt me. I was also worried about my youn,cr brorhcr because I w~ 3thid that he would have to stay by himm:lt: 5. Hour~ later, 1wa.~ &fven ~;ume food then told to get on abl,,.l) that wa.s waiting outside. They did not teU us whett they w~ taklng us und Tnnly expect~ the w1mn. rt wa~ veey difficult to hold the bag canyins my sandwich and apple ttS I '"as very tightly handcuffed. 1 could not
tew ilptm the bt~g with my sandwich and l was no< able tQ eat When l got on the bus J became
overcome with emotion nnd ~nic 3nci ~tarled to cry. We n)dC tm the bus for .a hours. After th~ bus stopped they called ee1ch nf t,~S by 11.ame. When they Cilled our name we were rakcn off
the btls. r was taken to the 3rd floor to a room that hod 5 beds. It was at this tin:t~ tJutr the
pla-;tic hinding wus b.ak~n offmy hands and 1was finally allowed to use the toi1et. 6. Jwas placed in a room with 4 o&h~r women ftlr a few hours. I believ~ it was ~nmd ll :00 p.m.
when r was taken to another room. 1had to wait in this roCJm for long time. l believe it was
about I;(}() a.m. when 1was fingerprinted ilnd atJothcr photograph was taken. l was then ~~akcd to iign a paf!~r oonftnning thnt I w~s whtl Tstated l Wli.S. The)' expla.irted that this paper was so
that we C0\1ld nod a lawyer. I was then inteJViewed by an immigration otlicer whtl asked me

.... ........ ,

tOOT l-.Clc Ot::te•nt

c0'd L99T V85 80~

~fl .lt''ht • -

. --

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 14 of 66

variou$ questions including who 1 was. enlry into the country, <~nd wn~re Twa.-. hom. One~ l wa~ 1ntcrvicwtd, I wets S4mt to another room where l saw tt OO(.:tor.
7, Thi~ was the first time Mything like this had happened to me, and l was v~:ry afraid.l thought ubout the brutality With which the~~ officers hru.l handled us when we were fust arrested ond bet icvcd they wtre capable ofharming us.
8. I was not rerumcd ro my room until after 3:00AM. By this timet Wll..<; exhausted, hungry. and
very afraid. I W3lt onIy allowed to t·est toJ a vr::ry short time bef<.1re the <.lfficc:rs came for us again. I believe it wa.-; aprn.~)l.tmutely 6:00AM. They called us by name ~nd mlcl u.-. tl' line np.
Wc were then brought down lrtair~. A.t the bottom of the !1Ulil'5 there w~m a cha\r :md we were forced to kneel with our hunds uguirutt the wall. At dill; time they put chiZins ..ro&&nd our hatds. waist, and feet Then. one 11f the officers grabbed me by the ~ and tor~d m~ to board a bliS. Again, [ W:!.! Mt t(lld INhere l was b~ing taken.
9. By 7:00AM we we~e. f inter found out. on our wayt(l Bn~tort, MA. The immi&rarion officm never told us throughout this journey where w~ wt:re glling. 1\o tme :t!kcd the immigration otlicen; out of fear. but it bE:Came increasingly d~lJr, rrom rumors other women had heard, rhar we might be transported to Texas.
10. We arrived at the airport in Boston whr:re we were told by the officers that we would have to wnit for an airplane ro :nnve. We ended v.p waitin' in the bu.::J fur over twtlv~ hours. We were:: ~n.,wc:d ro use rhc bathroom, but b~:C<lust: ow: wri~s and le~ wen: bound, it wa~ diffieuU f() u:;e 1t. I hnd to have a friend come with me tu th~ be1throom to lower my pants sc that JCl)uld use the toilet. I tctt humiliatetl, uncomfortuble. and very afraid. As we waited for over tw~lve hours on the bus, we wer~ given )01\'lt food. Howcve1, 1 couldn't eat ~liSe my wris~ were b'1und and connected ltl my waist.
11. The airplane arrived at approximately 8:00 PM. J\s we Wtr¢ hand(.UtTt'ld~ with cll&ins about our wnist Md arO'Imd cur- ankles, boarding the airpL"\\le was vay difficult. When we &Ot illtO the airplane, the ofticcrs scf'C3JNd at us to s.it down quickly. A31 bad difficulty sitting down. on~: of the ufficers grabbed me by my arms and toltl m«: to sit down, pushing m~ ink• the seat.
12. We anivoo in what tumtdout t~., heTeu~ utter midnight. lt was only upon our arrival in Texas that uttkers announc~d to u~ that we were nlnv in Te.le~S. J was terrified. l didn•t know what
wCJS !:,'Ofli to happ<.'ll tu me. Wh~n we arrived ir~Texas. we were transported by bua to another jilil not far from the airpclrt where we were given food. A couple haurs later, we were driven ro Port Is..-.bcl.
13. Once at Pon Isabel. th~ nfficetS tolll u:~ we: had to take offour clothes so that we could b:.thc, mtd that we would~ given uniforms to wear. This wa.11 the first timeT was allow('(} to bathe since being am:~;ted. Although we w~e rrermitted ''' buth~. it was wichout privacy. Five women 3t a time w~e required to tnter tht: showers togecher, bathe, nnd then ch&liC into our uniforms. I spent six da~ in run [~ubel.
2

~,; ·,.

J"¥\t +.A; ~ : n1

£0'd ~99 l t-86 80S

Jf"'V""\T - -- - - -

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 15 of 66
v0·d ltllDl
14. In Port Isabel, the oflicen. there screruned at us constantly. They would setC3m at us for not
unming a ~rfcct enough line ur nthc:r small things. They would scream at U.OJ until we ft:lt
~dremely nervous and Rad. l felt so afraid that [would bt harmed by thm\, 15. I wru; neva told about my tight co a bond hearing. !mmigrati,.,n offi~s never told m~ anything
ahout my tllgjbj}jty for bond while I wus detained. Until today, I did not even know that there was such A thing as .a bond. I6. 1dol\'t remember exactly whe1ll spoke to them but a lew da~ aftt:r l arri"ed in Port Isabel, sor.ne s'ocial workers spok~ with me. These social workers wanted to lcoow whctha l was 'a.ritlg for young cllildr~, and I told them 1W3S t~king ~re ofmy little brother who is 17 Ye.1J'S ofd. 17- On Tu~day March 13. 2007, an t,ffker woke me up asl was slccpins:. told me to gather my thin~, and eventuolly totd mel was b'Oing ba~k to Ma.ssacht&SCtts. l was Sl) hapPY to hear th.i5 n~ws. l, aLong with a few others. left onM airplane back to Bostoo, MA. Wich the 3Ssistancc
of an ldv~ate &om Greater Boston Legal Services. r was evmtually able ro rciUm to my
home in New Bedford, Ml\. 18. When I arrived at hom_,, Jfelt so happy. But, l have teamed that my det.ention ha~ harmed my
tamily a great deal. My faxniJy lived through a very traumatil; war. Whr;n they heard that I had been detained, J lell!lled that tbcy were extremely worried a.lx.,ut me. 1learned that m.y little brother thought thiK 1would he killed when he learned that l bad been detained. 19. The firt-t n.igbt 1wss back. I !ilept well. But uow, when 1sleep, 1feel very navous. l w:\ke up many ti~s during the night reliving the senwio1\ ofsomeone gra.bhing my arms or legs. I have ret:vrrent ni&}ltma.rcs 3bout my ~Jtt"terienccs being dc:t3ined.
I, Juillla De La Crtt7. Rochib'UCZ.. hereby state this 27"1 day ofMurch 2001 in Boston. Massachusetts that the ubove has bct:r\ tran~lated tv me from Eng!Uh to Spaniah aad that it is true to rhe bcsr ofmy jntonnation and belief.
fJ ·- _uvtrr20 r/ie I L7Qt/~j2'CJd~ l/~:?
Ju.~la De La Cruz Rodriguez
r. Maritza Gomc:z, state this 2~ day ~,fMarch 2007 in &ston, MA that Tam tlu~t in the English
and SpanU;h languages and thm I have translated the ab<Jve sratement to tbc at'fianr, prior to
signature, to the ht:st ofmy ability.

3

h/h·~

, qqt ~ ~:n1

v0'd L99r vB6 80£

J CICIr noc or;v-

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 16 of 66
Exhibit E

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 17 of 66
DECLARATION OF SONIA QUINTANILLA-PALACIOS
I, Sonia Quintanilla-Palacios, hereby state and depose:
I. My name is Sonia Armida Quintanilla-Palacios. I live at 147 State Street #2, New Bedford, MA 02740. I was born June 9, 1968. I am 38 years old. I have two children. My son, Steven Francisco Carranza is a two year old US citizen, and Jives with me. lam a single mother. My daughter, Eligia Stephanie Cordoba Quintanilla, is eighteen and lives in El Salvador.
2. I was detained on March 6'h, 2007, at Fort Devens, and ultimately released on March 12, 2007, from the Bristol County jail in North Dartmouth.
3. On Tuesday, March 6'11, I went to work at about seven-thirty. At eight-thirty a very large number of immigration agents raided the factory. They stormed in very suddenly wearing dark uniforms with guns at their side. I will never forget how terrified I felt. They started grabbing people and putting them in handcuffs. I saw a woman who was pregnant and her partner. She became very afraid and he tried to console her and protect her stomach. The agents grabbed both of them and pushed their heads to the ground. That made me even more frightened.
4. The officers ordered us all into a line and put plastic handcuffs on us. They took all our belongings and put them into a bag for each person. They handcuffed some people behind their backs and some in the front. They handcuffed me behind my back, which hurt a lot. After a while, many started asking to be allowed to use the bathroom. Finally, they started letting some go to the bathroom, but always under guard as if we were all the worst of criminals. At first they refused to take off the handcuffs, and an officer would pull down the women's pants and make them use the toilet with the door open. I held off as long as I possibly could as I dreaded being demeaned in this way. However, the guards finally let some women use the bathroom without handcuffs and so I, too, asked to use the toilet. Even then, I still had to go to the bathroom with the door open in front of the agent. They then immediately handcuffed me again, except this time my hands were handcuffed in front of me.
5. I remember feeling very worried, especially for my son, Steven Francisco. He is very young and would be lost without me. In my heart I felt that I was going to lose him and that terrified me.
6. We were then taken to the cafeteria of the factory where we were made to wait. We were all ordered to keep quiet. Whenever any one asked what was going to happen to us, we

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 18 of 66
were told to shut up. We were all very afraid of the officers and what they were going to do to us.
7. At one point, they took our personal infonnation, and a photo, which they put in our bag of belongings. Someone I knew who had a baby was explaining to an agent that she couldn't leave her baby behind. I tried to go and sit near her because I wanted to explain that I had a small child that I couldn't leave behind either. But before I got to explain, an agent carne and yelled at me.
8. After what felt like forever, I was ordered to board a bus. I was never told where they were taking us and only feared the worst. Everyone, including myself, was nervous. The guards told us not to say anything and made us only feel worse.
9. The bus took us to where everyone was being held. It looked like a very high security prison. It was full of guards and fences. I feared that 1would never be let out.
10. Still handcuffed, I was escorted into building. The handcuffs were then taken otf of us. After waiting, I was eventually assigned to a room with very small beds. A large number of officers were watching us and ordering us around. After this we were finally allowed to use the bathroom. Of course, we still had to ask pennission and then they would take us down to the bathroom. Even then, a female agent would stand guard while we went to the bathroom with the door open.
11. Although we were in this room, I couldn't sleep because I was too upset and there was too much noise and commotion. It was also very cold and there was no heat in the room. I also remember having a very bad headache.
I2. At one point, a person from what I believe was the Guatemalan Consul came into the room. If we were sick, felt bad, or were cold, he advised us that we should tell the officers, ask to see the nurse, or ask for more sheets, because it was our right. He said not to worry, that tomorrow someone would come from the Salvadoran consulate. I think the Salvadoran consul came by a couple of days later.
13. Among many other things, I remember the person picking up the trash ordering us not to gather around the window or touch the light switch in the room. I also remember one of the officers saying to us, when one of us said we were cold, "Why did you come to this country? You should have known it was cold here." All of this only it made it evident to me that they thought of us as less than human.
14. At one point, they gave us a bag of tood that had a ham sandwich, a small bottle of water, an apple, and a bag of chips. This was the tirst time I had eaten since before I was detained.
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 19 of 66
15. I remember worrying all the time about my son. I could not imagine what life was going to be without my son. Like so many others with me, I had been warned prior to the raid that if I was picked up by the government, since my son is a US citizen, my son would be taken away from me and I would never see him again.
16. Around four o'clock that morning, I was taken to a big room to give personal information, take another photo, and answer questions. They wanted to know about entry into the country and all about my family.
17. Then I went into a room where an officer was at a table with papers. He showed me a paper and said I had rights, and there was a place with small boxes to be checked off if I wanted to go before a judge or if I agreed to be deported and agreed that I had no fear of returning to my country. He then showed me that a box had already been checked off next to the part where one agrees to be deported and proceeded to state that obviously, since I had already agreed to being deported that I had no fear of returning to El Salvador. He next stated to me that since I had already agreed to this, I should just initial the box that had been checked off. Having never agreed to that, I immediately responded that I wanted to go before a judge. I also told him that I had never agreed to being deported. I asked him to erase that X. He asked me if I was sure and then allowed me to initial the box asking for a hearing. I explained that I had a small child.
18. The whole time we were there, we wore the same clothes every day, and did not get to shower.
19. Finally, on Thursday, they moved people to different places. Some people, I have since learned, were taken away to Texas. Again, they did not tell me where they were taking me. I ended up in a detention center in North Dartmouth (Bristol County) with other Salvadoran women. And again, I feared the worst as they transported us to an unknown destination. I was still in shock and only knew in my heart that the government wanted to process all of us as fast as possible to send us away from our families, our friends and our community. Without them, it would be next to impossible to get lawyers and support to save me from being deported.
20. Finally, in the Dartmouth detention center, they took my clothing and gave me new clothes to wear. Although I was still very anxious, including worrying for my son, at least I felt I could sleep and eat.
21. We were in large rooms with many small bunk beds. Everyone I was with were mothers with children, and two women were pregnant. I think that one of the pregnant women has still not been released. I was finally released from the Bristol Country jail on the 12'h through
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 20 of 66
the help of the state child welfare department, DSS. I cannot express how wonderful it was to be reunited with my son, as well as others in my community. 22. To this day, I have problems with anxiety, such as great difficulty sleeping. My fears keep me up late at night thinking and worrying about what happened to me and my son. My son Steven also remains traumatized. Especially the t1rst night I returned, he cried and cried. I cannot get over the humiliation I and my friends have been made to suffer. 1 find myself worrying and worrying about what will happen to me, to my son, and to all the people who are still detained. I grew up during the period when El Salvador was in the midst of a terrible war. This experience has made me think about and be traumatized by the terrible things my family witnessed there. When I think about being deported or my son being taken from me, it makes me cry and feel very scared. This experience was very ugly. We had no freedom and no rights. It is not an experience I would wish on any other person. I hereby state this 271hday of March 2007 in Massachusetts that the above has been translated to me from English to Spanish and that it is true to the best of my information and belief.
Certificate of Translation I, Maritza Gomes, hereby state this 2th day of March 2007 that I am fluent in the English and Spanish languages and that I have translated the above statement to the affiant, prior to signature, to the best of my ability.
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 21 of 66
Exhibit F

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 22 of 66
Affidavit of J<:arla Guerra
I. Karla Guerra, state and d\..-posc 3S follows:
1. My name is Karla Gum-a.
2. I was bom January 7, 1989. 3. f hVi: at 460 Bohon Street #l, New Bedford. MA. 4. On March 6, 2007, I anived at work at usunJ as 7:30AM. Suc.ldenJy) at i1rOUJ1d
8:20AM. J saw unifomtrro men weuring musks, with on.ly their eye" showing. rushing intd the pluce where I wns workillg. Then, wh11t felt like lumdr~ of armed (lffii!CtS ~wnn<::<.l into the building. !remember feeling terrified. S. The officers ordered us to get down on the tloor. l said. ••non, rhat 1hadn't done anything wrong. Th.: offi~~ insisted I get down ontQ the t1(tOf and pushed me down with great for~ He then dusped my hands behind my back and handcuffed me. 1
wasn't abJ~ to mnve fi·om the floor for over a ha)fhour. The handcuff.'! were very
tigl1t and I telt great pain in my shoulders. 6. Around me the ilnned officers were $Cl~aming very louoly. Among other things. 1
saw one man with a very bloody nose aod a cut hand. I saw illll\thtr ir'ldividual,
named Sut;anna; she WIIS ditty, as ifshe had been brutally dragged. She was (.'Y)'ing. I remember teeling great fear. both for myself and my fdlt1w workers. We were being tn:uted like the worsr criminal~ 1n the world. 1. At one poit,t,l really had to go to the bathroom. Finally an officer took me too.
bathn•om. Th~y expected that we would usc the bathroom as tbcy stood in front uf rhe stall with tl)e door cpen. They refused to remove our handcuffs and told us they \VOuld pull our p~mts down for us. 1was mcnstruatins and told them 1needed aanitmy products, which they could not provid~ to me. Humiliated and cmbarrassed.l insisted on using the bathroom with the door cl.,scd and managed to do so quick'y before the <,t\1cer could intervene. 8. I was then taken to a la.rgc cafeteria where I wa~ made (·o wait in line. At som~ point they ~hal'lg~ my hM.dcuffs and handcuffed me with my ;:,.rms in ftonc of me. By this tim~:, my arms hurt me very much and my hands ~re swelling. Eventt&aUy. after tiUUlY haurs, I was Jlroces~ecl. Although I asked to use the telephone. 1was never
allowed tt), l fetnember many worried parents :.ssking to make calls, and they were ttl~() denied. By this time. I also felt very confused ~ to wnat wa.~ go;ng t·a happen to me. I felt as if Iwas in shock. As my sister was abo thcr~ I tried to see her, but was
told to shut up. 9. I and others w~ then ordt:red to board a bus. The officers did not tell us where they
were taking vs. Some workers asked and were told to shut up. As we were. boarding

S;2. d

L99t t:>86 EraS :01

c0'd ~991 v86 80S

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 23 of 66
the bus, t remember that some officers wer~ laughirtg at the sight ofus boarding the bus with handcuffs. 1heard one of them sa)ing "so many ladies" in a laughing mu.nner. l felt so humiliatal. I0. Even on the hu~ they did n(,)t take oil'the handcutl~. When people asked to use the tmthroom, we were told we could use it. However, as we Wel'e still handcuff~. it w~ next to impossible to usc it. Again. if we tried to talk, we were ordered to sh11t up. At one point an officer came by and basically threw some food and a bottle of
water 3t us. Again, as we were stm handcutl'ed, I c<Jutdn't eat. 1also didn't eat
because 1was roo upset. T<ml.y man~~ at one point to drink some w~tcr. The fet~~ of not knowing what wa.~ going to happen next was ove-whelmina. 11. My si~rer, Natalie, was with Ul$ on tb~ bus. At one point she began to vomil nut of netvc.lusness. I got the attention ofone of the officers who laugtled nnd gave my sister a boll. in which she CO'llld vom1t. We had oo id~ where we were going. We wen: aU very afraid. 12. After several hours., we finally arri"Ved at the new detention sire. As we got off the bus, land others were brought to a room where my hat\dcuffs were taken off. We were given bracelets :\Ccording to "'hat they perceived as our nationality. We were put into group~ ofsi~ and wu~ tik.tn to nx.nn:s. FiDwly, aft~ waiting tbr h,')urs, we were aJlowed tn u..·u~ the bathroom. However, the bathroom had open dMn; .und nfl1~~s stiU kept wat~hing us.
13. rwas then brougbt into a room with other womm and told to stand against a wall.
One by &)nc, we were sea.rched. OUr jackets and shoes were taken. We were given socks and some very huge thin shoes that were orange. lt was a very, vety coJd
room.
14. We waited tor two or more hours and then were taken to a doctor who asked us ifw~ were ill. The doctor fou11d rhat ! had very high blood pressure, and ia"VC me pilJs saying tb~y were for my headache and my nerves. I wa.~ asked to si8Jl-' totm~ and
whm r ~ked what it was, I was told that it was proofthat I had re~ived medical
treatmenl l5. While in rhe <l<.tctors ofli<:~. I began fo cry. The doetor reprimanded me 4nd told me
v~ry sternly that 1was fine~ that Tw~'i in a sat~ ptac~. ilnd it waln! 't a~; ifT was ll1!1ins a hund or a foot. I told mm that t was not tine, lhat I was tenified and that I was lD~ting my freedom in this pluce. The doctor simply told me that it was not his fault. t6. That evening, we were given tbud anc.l water. Howev<:r. I did not cat bccaue.e 1was too upset. Jonly had water. Many of the women wHh me did the same. Amons other thing.-;, I felt v~ry sick. 1was so overwhelmed and exhau..;t~ by ev~hing that my blood pressure began to rise and afttx.'t me. Again, I tried to make a telephone call and was told that [ cuuldn't.

<: ,.. ~ •ri

) GC!t: .,AA M<:: :1"1 I

£0"d ~991 v86 80S

l-9'31 pas; ~

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 24 of 66

17.

fearini the and others,

worst. 1 wailed were taken to a

and W3itcd. Fina.lly 3bout large office wich bundrccls

3:00A.M. tile: next rooming, r. of computt!~ where ev~tnru&ly

we were toM we were going to be fingerprinted.

18. TwdS again made to wait As always, we were ordered to keep quiet. At approximately 5:!0 a.m. f wa..~ llngeyprinted. At tin..1 they confused me with my sister. After my ohjt.:ct;on~. they brc.1ught in my sister. J manugec.l t<l hug her once, but they quickly took h~r away. When they finally resolvtd the confu~ion. they told me I wa.-; tlo11e, and I was taken b:lek to my room. 1 asked them whether they were guins to give me any papers. but they said no, thatl was awaiting a ~o\U't date and didn't need ally new papers. I told them thGt ( wanted a lawyer and they told me that I would have to wait.

19. While bc1ng processeA, I h~ard a woman neaT mt telling an officer th.ar she did not want to s1gn any parers.The= ofticer asked her why. and 1$h~ said that a man hMI come to her room a.nd tnld her not to sig11. The otnc.:er laSk.:d her who th<lt man was, bur she told the ofti~ l>hetlidn't know who the man was. Th,e offlctt i.J\si$ted that~ sign, and two <Jth.er officers were called to pressure her. t did not see bow this ex~hangc ended, hllt Jtold another woman. next to me that she had 3. right not to sig11 ~ and shuuldn't give 11p those right!i.

20. From etlfly morning, we wert up nnd around. We were made to wait and wait. By
then it had been over 24 hours since I had ~tept. I rcmtmbt."f fcc1ing terrible and like I was in lihock. A~n J tried to make ll call and wa~ n<lt allowed a~s to a tclq)honc.

21 . Finally, on Wcdne.4I03)' evening. I and another twelve women were Jllllle.d out and taken out ofthe detention cmt-=r. We were drivtn back. to Ntw .Sedfonl and Oroppcd off in front ofthe Bianw fact<try. l remember feeling like a mi1'1lclc had happened. However. 1felt very upstt o.nd worried about the others wc.trk~ who remained debsin~, in<:luding my s~tcr.
22. 1finally heatd from my sister. She told me vl!ry briefly over the phone that she. too. had b~ treated her very badly. From the moment they invaded the taGtOI')I she was
tear in !Uelt and shock. During lhe ~earc:h, they #ppa{C:ntly hL&miliated htr, asking her
to stand in positions th~t made: her teet vCfY Vlollnerublc Jlld exposed. Titcy w&nted her
to stand with her ann~ c"h:mlcd, hold her breasts, told her ro rum such that ber breasts 3nd huttrx:ks 5wayed. When she refused to St3nd ia these positions, the officer. who I believed to be a male, hecnme Vf!!fY angry.
23. My sister stayed detain(d f.or eight days. She, too, has fmaUy been released jn {)rder to provide care f'ur het duld. She is very dcprciscd. She's in constartt fC3r that her child will be taken away. Her child has also been <ldeply atTecred by tne loAA ofbt..,. mother. Thtyboth ~ vc::ry !illd all the time.

~/~·d

L99t ~ ees :ol

v0 'd L99t v86 80£

: WQH~ ts :vJ Lea2-92- ~

(:..;:J • TT

J1~"':' , - , ,,.. . . .

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 25 of 66

-- -

•V -4U~

24. J, too, have nut b~ abl~: to overcome my sense oftear and los.<10 ot' dignity. While 1

do not h~ve oommunity

children myself. as a whole. I am

l.sc:e bow much this hils aftC:<:tcd my sista, and lilY uutntged tbo&t we were treAted as if we wcreo't even

human bt:ings - as if we had no rights. I know. now more than ~ver, how imP"fUnt it

is for me to stand up fnr my own rights and to help tho~ more wJoersble and afraid

than r ~tand up for their own rishts as well.

I. Klrla that Lhe

Ou~:tra, hereby state ah<we ~1atement has

this 2;•• day of been trartslatcd

March, 2007 in New Bedford. Musachu.~tts to me from E.nglish to Spanlskt and it is true

to the h~~-t of my infom1ation and belief.

Certificate LlfTranslation
1, Marit7.a Gmne~ , hereby state this 27th day of March. 2007 that l am tluent in English and Spunish Junguzges and 1have: u:an:dat~ th<: ~bove mt~mcnt to the affiant , prior to signature. to the best ofmy ability.

s/~ ·d

L99~ ~ ses :o1

S0 "d ~991 v86 80S

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 26 of 66
Exhibit G

CCasaese11:0:077-c-cvv--1000417615--SRSGS DDocoucmumenetn2t322-2FileFdil0e3d/2023/2/2080/707 PPaaggee12o7f 4of 66

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

FI[EQ

WESLEYANN EMPTAGE, by and through her next friend and mother, Raouitee Pamela Puran,
Plaintiff,

-vs-

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; JULIE L.
MYERS, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE); JOHN P. TORRES, Director, Office of Detention and

Removal Operations, ICE; MARC MOORE, ICE Field Office Director; GARY MEAD, Assistant
Director of Detention and Removal Operations at

ICE; Simona Colon, ICE Officer in Charge; and JOHN POGASH, ICE National Juvenile

Coordinator,

Defendants.

MOHAMMED mRAmM, by

and through his next friend and mother,

Deka Warsame,

Plaintiff,

-vs-
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; et aJ.,
Defendants.

BAHJA IBRAHIM, by

and through her next friend and mother,

Deka Warsame,

Plaintiff, ·

-vs-
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S. Department ofHomeJand.Security; et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. A-07-CA-158...SS
Case No. A-07-CA-161-SS Case No. A-07-CA-162-SS

f

CCasaese11:0:077-c-cvv--1000417615--SRSGS DDocoucmumenetn2t322-2FileFdil0e3d/2023/2/2080/707 PPaaggee22o8f 4of 66

AISHA ffiRAIDM, by

and through her next friend and mother,

Deka Warsame,

Plaintiff,

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; et al.,
Defendants.

SAULE BUNIKYTE, by and through his next friend and mother,
Rasa Bunikiene, Plaintiff,

-vs-
MICHAEL CHERT6FF, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; et al.,
Defendants.

EGLE BAUBONYTE, by and through her next friend and mother,
Rasa Bunikiene, Plaintiff,

-vs-
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S.
Department ofHomeland Security; et al., Defendants.

SHERONA VERDIEU, by

and through her next friend and mother,

Delourdes Verdieu,

Plaintiff,

-vs-
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; et al., Defendants.

Case No. A-07-CA-163-SS
Case No. A-07-CA-164-SS Case No. A-07-CA-165-SS
Case No. A-07-CA-166-SS

CaCsaese1:10:707-c-cvv-1-000417615--RSGS S DDooccuummenetn2t322-2FileFdil0e3d/2023//22080/707 PPaaggee32o9f o4f 66

KEVIN YOURDKHANI, by and through his next friend and mother, Masomeh Alibegi,
Plaintiff,
~vs-
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S. Department ofHomeland Security; et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. A-07~CA-167-SS

ORDER BElT REMEMBERED that on the 20th day of March 2007 the Court held a hearing in the above-styled cases. The parties were represented by counsel. The Court considered the minor Plaintiffs' request for a preliminaryinjunction ordering the immediate release ofthe minorPlaintiffs and their parents, and ordering access to Plaintiffs and their medical records for Plaintiffs' counsel and experts. The Court now confirms its oral orders with the following: It is ORDERED that within SEVEN [7] days ofthe entry ofthis Order, the parties shall file the following additional briefing and evidence: Plaintiffs and Defendants shall file affidavits describing each party's attempts to comply with the exhaustion requirements of Paragraph 24 ofthe Flores Settlement. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall file affidavits detailing what proceedings regarding bond or parole, if any, have been held with regard to each Plaintiff. Defendants shall file any available evidence relating to the licensing exemption allegedly granted the Hutto facility by the State of Texas. The parties shall confer and submit a proposed scheduling order for expedited discovery and trial. To the extent the parties cannot agree on this schedule, each party may submit its own
proposed scheduling order.

CCasaese11:0:077-c-cvv--1000417615--RSSGS DDocoucmumenetn2t322-2FileFdil0e3d/2023/2/2080/707 PPaaggee43o0f 4of 66
Plaintiffs and Defendants shall file supplemental briefing regarding (1) any contentions that provisions of the Flores settlement apply only to unaccompanied minors; (2) the effect of the claimed license exemption on the Flores "licensed program" requirements; and (3) the effect oflegaJ proceedings for release, including bond, parole, and habeas corpus proceedings, on Plaintiffs' request for equitable release. Either party may file a response to these arguments within SEVEN [7] days of the entry of these supplemental briefs.
The Court is troubled by the evidence presented at yesterday's hearing, in particular by the evidence that Plaintiffs' access to private consultation with their attorneys is severely limited. Hutto is a detention facility, not a penitentiary. Even in the penitentiary, lawyers can see their clients privately. Whatever the inconvenience may be to ICE, CCA, or any other organization in the alphabet soup responsible for the Hutto facility, this Court fmd it hard to imagine a legitimate reason for rules giving immigrant detainees fewer rights to counsel than federal felons. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the restrictions on the number of clients an attorney can see per visit and the requirement that children attend their parents' attorney visits be REMOVED immediately.
SIGNED this theelf~day ofMarch 2007.
SAM SPARKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 31 of 66
Exhibit H

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 32 of 66

FOLEY HOAGtLP
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
March 27, 2007

Rebecca M. Cazabon Boston Oftice
617·832·1755 rcazabon@foleyhoag.com

Ms. Roxana Abrego Consul General Consulate of El Salvador 143 Border Street East Boston, MA 02128 617-567-8686 (fax) 617-567-8484 (phone)

URGENT-Automatic Stay of Removal

Via Facsimile Re: Potential Claims for Relief for Detainees of New Bedford Raid

Dear Consul General Abrego:

rWFe.qeKuueensnAtdntesehrdpasyttearyFnooeduudfrerdroteaemlllaeBypyuhothioulendr eircneocgmnoisnonuvvlBeaarltoseosatttfohiaonalntli,nothIuaearnmictnilcidseiiepnvnatidsdtiiuconaunglrsoryeiofnnutcthlltyeuhidairseriedmlebomtteneiirnnthegtonehtuleirrlsegdtmeainnotttvaltyachlhe.eJdo.hn

raauescrlygciloeeunmfmttWlphy,aarenrteeiwhleqiadeeuvfebbeuseytsnlictidgheoenvaurtienftyihmscoeeaaulnUyatdnbVredeeliaasaaysarvoetapnhibreltoeaorgibnebrlmgaeemlotaiosev,kvataheelmdeotmohtfnoa.tgthwToeoauhtcihrolviesceerelnitfethfosonerrtwimsmrescrsiuhgoorahfrfvterrseenelttlloiliieysecftf.aeemrdrAet,aagnsyioanoiitntnfho,carlwmut dewseeof may meet with them to provide legal representation in this regard.

In detained

addition, a motion to rescind the prior removal orders for all detainees as a result of the New Bedford immigration raid, has been filed with the

Chief

Immigration Judge.

83335751.1

Seaport World Trade Center West I 155 Seaport Blvd. I Boston, MA 02210-2600 I TEL: 617.832.1000 I FAX: 617.832.7000

Foley Haag LLP

BOSTON

WASHINGTON, DC

www.foleyhoag.com

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 33 of 66
March 27, 2007 Page2
We graciously thank you for your assistance in this very important matter. Very truly yours,

Rebecca M. Cazabon, Esq. on behalf of myself and several attorneys of our finn

similarly situated,

~( ~ ~ c:c.-P.,.'
Foley Hoag LLP

U

crw

B333575 1. 1

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 34 of 66

Guadalupe Rivas-Martinez Ms. Juana Candelaria Joval Alvarado Dora Mariciela Alvarado (Rivas)
Fatima Duran Maria Isabel Rivas de Flores lvette Sanabria Henriques Ms. Maria Irma Rosa Arguenta
Lilian Rivera Martinez

94-790-029 98595235 99-665-242 200-114-703 094-789-912 98 987 035 098-654-074 094 796 418

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 35 of 66
Exhibit I

Discovery reCqauessets1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 36 of 6P6age 1 of 4

Bonn, Bernard

From: Bonn, Bernard

Sent:
To: Cc:

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:59PM

'Stevens, Elizabeth (CIV)'; Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara H. (USAMA); Crowley, Frank J

Shin, Michael; Lyons, Matthew; law.com; Reinstein@aclum.org;

nkelly@gbls.org; jwillshire-carrera@gbls.org; hkaplan@kofAnjali Waikar; Starn, Jennifer; Iris Gomez; Laura Rotolo

Subject: RE: Discovery requests

Ms. Stevens, we also have filed a direct action apply; we have served discovery requests and

for declaratory relief and the Federal expect compliance, compromise or a

Rules of Civil Procedure protective order before the

response dates.

Bernard J. Bonn Ill, Esq. Dechert LLP 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Tel: +1-617-728-7143
Cell: +1-617-429-5854 Fax 617-275-8383 E-mail: bernard.bonn@dechert.com

From: Stevens, Elizabeth (CIV) [mailto:Eiizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:46PM

To: Cc:

Bonn, Bernard; Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara H. (USAMA); Crowley, Shin, Michael; Lyons, Matthew; nkelly@gbls.org; jwillshire-carrera@gbls.org;

Frank J hkaplan@kof-law.com;

Reinstein@aclum.org; Anjali Walkar; Starn, Jennifer; Iris Gomez; Laura Rotolo

Subject: RE: Discovery requests

Mr. Bonn:
rtt1ehhe.xeaqtetuDC,neipsotsucutt,horrstwav'useteartohynwritdsiinlteloirsam,sthwahuekaeeeboiwserhaaiiallmlsommpradaravoektatcereieslarMeoobdrflfi.entdhCgoieshnpiasCuadsotnbeouo,elretuRx,lrypennesaoedpvoaioattevnihladadeibelbralnaedbtsilssteihscwfr,oooitvlurolegotwrihmryaite,thlhldaMyeesasapberuoceetshehkitno3iaor0aninz.u,aatIathptinoopisdnrriozRpopeuefrditrsahspbteueoyanCOtndhotreeudtnoreCtt.srtoh'ouePpfruotC.rsosiTtuuiooartnn'tsht eto clarification from the Court

2. Respondents will not provide lists of detainees.

3. If an access

individual detainee requests access to identified counsel, DHS has at the facilities where detainees are currently housed, subject to the

provided, and will provide normal limitations of a

such

detention setting.

4. The proper proceedures for are established by regulation.

filing a motion to reopen in To the extent that you have

absentia proceedings with the immigration court asked for an opinion of law regarding automatic

stays, the regulations clearly speak for themselves.

5. Respondents will not consent to any further delays in removing the individuals who have expressed an wish to be removed, or those with pre-existing final orders.

ELIZABETH (BETTY) STEVENS
Trial Attorney DOJ/CIV/OIL
3/28/2007

Discovery reCqauessets1:07-cv-10471-RGS

Document 22-2

Filed 03/28/07

Page 2 of 4
Page 37 of 66

202-616-9752

fax (NEW): 202-233-0397

From: Bonn, Bernard [mailto:bernard .bonn@dechert.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:00 AM
To: Stevens, Elizabeth (CIV); Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara H. (USAMA); Crowley, Frank J Cc: Shin, Michael; Lyons, Matthew; nkelly@gbls.org; jwillshire-carrera@gbls.org; hkaplan@kof-law.com; Reinstein@aclum.org; Anjali Waikar; Starn, Jennifer; Iris Gomez; Laura Rotolo
Subject: RE: Discovery requests Importance: High

Betty, I left a voicemail with a number of items including the scope of discovery to discuss with you. Please give me a call when you get a chance.

We the

dheafveendnaontitcsetdothcoemdpislyc.ovIef ryyouanindteanbdsetontsaenekoradeprrofrtoemctivtheeocroduerrtoorrcalanraifigcraetieomn,eInat mit isavinaciluamblebetondt auypofonr

a

hearing . My preference is we reach some accommodation .

The other matters I identified in my message were: the notice of intent to remove the US; access to the plaintiffs in Texas; the names of the plaintiffs in Texas; and the motion filed with the immigration judge to rescind the absentia removal orders

123 of the Pla intiffs from
whether you agree that results in an automatic

stay of those orders.

Thanks, Bernie

Bernard J. Bonn Ill, Esq. Dechert LLP 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Tel: +1 -617-728-7143
Cell: +1-617-429-5854
Fax 617-275-8383 E-mail: bernard .bonn@dechert.com

From: Stevens, Elizabeth (CIV) [mailto :Elizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:16 AM To: Bonn, Bernard; Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara H. (USAMA); Crowley, Frank J
Cc: Shin, Michael; Lyons, Matthew; nkelly@gbls.org; jwillshire-carrera@gbls.org; hkaplan@koflaw.com; Reinstein@aclum.org; Anjali Waikar; Starn, Jennifer; Iris Gomez; Laura Rotolo
Subject: RE: Discovery requests

Mr. Bonn: deposition

Defendants' counsel unanimously noted authorized was that of Mr. Chadbourne,

Judge Stearns' oral and Judge Stearns'

order that the one disallowance of document

discovery. It is our position that no other discovery has been authorized by the Court.

/s
ELIZABETH ( BETTY} STEVENS
Trial Attorney DOJ/CIV/OIL 202-616-9752 fax (NEW): 202-233-0397

From: Bonn, Bernard [mallto:bernard.bonn@dechert.com] 3/28/2007

Discovery reCqausesets1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 38 of 6P6age 3 of4 Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:10 PM
To: Stevens, Elizabeth (CIV); Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara H. (USAMA); Crowley, Frank J Cc: Shin, Michael; Lyons, Matthew; nkelly@gbls.org; jwillshire-carrera@gbls.org; hkaplan@koflaw.com; Reinstein@aclum.org; Anjali Waikar; Starn, Jennifer; Iris Gomez; Laura Rotolo
Subject: RE: Discovery requests Importance: High

wdIwfpsomoaooopeirotmm.csphtcutiooepIatmrhhnontuoauenentpfngoendCtpiehttetdyhytehpriaissttertododotmmwaibdsddniiousctfiidhssocusoccotrrvtifunohouoensevantrroseytadwlaartlseuhln.ceonpoedkvmFtofiipoalodstehugflieraterjaimanuoptiencrnRnoiidreys,s.udpdeiWildlneefiecetorehst3hpgfiuoa0aocrthonp(tpsobiuwpis.ust)niol{oowdIf6druintare);aslmodtwdtlcosfewaemowjbupnaaaiersolvilakressienemegdietgriiokelioceotatftnpoeoeidnoskraoidoinisnsnandicgsigsteuocfaitunrcvfhuoltcnefis,iosroearshryncrtotilreymhiioumwsorewtneueaitt,odieivistnnewroespgrrureirpne,Roetrhfqwvouwobeuiorlddeeeemuuiefmswl3ocadtp0emrtofielb(oouawebenrlitddn)hh(nwtaie5aainofit)ttflecwlsetwiihoennwdaiuedgscniirsttsaotdhpcoorinosoepamnaivnnotelgheeotscreroatetypikneootidnnontogeif

that question. Rule 30(b)(6)

I don't know what Mr. Chadbourne actually knows but if he is able topics that are relevant to jurisdiction (and we would need to come

to to

address the some agreement

on what topics those are) deposition, I think we can

and we can come to an

get the documents we seek on that issue before the agreement. Otherwise, the defendants would need to

file

a

dCmohocatkidoebntosfuohrrenaeetp,orPnoltaaeincntteiivfxfesp'oemdrdioteetirdoonbrfaaosrimsd;oishticiosonvdefeorpyrocwslaiatrisoifinacladlotoiwoenesd. n,AoastnaydpowpueecaawrnetorseebeeentfrhcooemuoranthglyeeddoirstdoceodrveoepnryotshweeeMarr.e

allowed to conduct. however. I am available first thing in the morning to discuss this further and see

if we can reach agreement. Bernie

ElectronicC l er k's Not es for proceedings held before Judge Richard G.

Stearns : Hear i ng/Sta tus Conferen ce held o n 3/2 1 /2007. At tys . Bonn, Kapla n, Shin,Ke l l y and Wilshire p res ent for the plaintiffs/petitioners.

Attys. Stevens,Grady a nd Crowl ey present for the defendants/respondents .

Plaint i ffs 'request to conduct limited dis covery on t he juri sdictional

issues isgranted by t he Court , and Court suggests to counsel that the

d epositiono f Bruce Chadbourne be taken on an expedited basis . The

response t othe pending motion to dismiss shall be filed by pla i ntiffs on

Apr il days .

4, 2007 . The A hear ing on

defen dants t he mot ion

will be allowe d t o f ile to dismi ss i s schedul ed

a reply within7 fo r APRIL 19 ,

2007at 1 1 :30 A. M. Adjour n 11:4 0 A.M . (Court Reporter J ame s Gibb ons.)

(Johnson, Mary)

Bernard J. Bonn Ill, Esq. Dechert LLP 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Tel: +1-617-728-7143
Cell: +1-617-429-5854
Fax 617-275-8383 E-mail: bernard.bonn@dechert.com

3/28/2007

From: Stevens, Elizabeth (CIV) [mailto:Eiizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 3:51PM To: Bonn, Bernard; Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara H. (USAMA); Crowley, Frank J

Discovery reCquaessets1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 39 of 6P6age 4 of4
Chkca: pSlahnin@, Mkoicf-hlaawel.;cloymo;nsR,eMinasttethine@w;anclkuemlly.o@rgg;bAlsn.ojarlgi ;Wjwaiilklsahr;ireS-tcaarnrr,eJrean@nigfebrls; .Iorrisg;Gomez; laura Rotolo Subject: RE: Discovery requests
Importance: High
Mr. Bonn:
CpORrherodasdepdurobcwnotiduiotehrnnnraetesr.setApaueksnceaat tuthcotoehdnopisrsoiezcsqeoitudvioeeannrnyct.deha,Pimytleotphauresor epCRelouerlu.teruWt3'ss0ekO(bnwr)odi(lw6le)brwedwheraepestoqhlsuiemietrisioyttenoindusgtawotnhitdlalhwterteihtdqheeudpeCroasostwsuitritfothoncerladorerofiqfcFyuuOiemtDssetsnt or join the motion seeking clarification.
Sincerely,
ELIZABETH ( BETTY) STEVENS
Trial Attorney DOJ/ C I V / O i l 202-616-9752 fax (NEW): 202-233-0397

From: Bonn, Bernard [mailto:bernard.bonn@dechert.com]

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:58 PM
To: Grady, Mark (USAMA); Smith, Barbara

H.

(USAMA);

Crowley,

Frank

J;

Stevens,

Elizabeth

(CIV)

Cc: Shin, Michael; lyons, Matthew; nkelly@gbls.org hkaplan@kof-law.com; Reinstein@aclum.org; Anjali

; jwillshire-carrera@gbls.org; Waikar; Starn, Jennifer; Iris Gomez;

laura Rotolo

SUbject: Discovery requests

Importance: High

Mark, sorry not to have responded sooner. Let me know if you want to discuss any of the dates. Thanks, Bernie

<<Document.pdf>> <<Document.pdf>> <<Document.pdf>> <<Document.pdf» <<Document.pdf>>

Bernard J. Bonn Ill, Esq.
Dechert LLP Attorneys at law, 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Tel: +1-617-728-7143 Cell: +1-617-429-5854 Fax: 617-275-8383
E-mail: bernard.bonn@dechert.com Assistant: Kara Dunn
Tel: 617-728-7132 E-mail: kara.dunn@dechert.com

This e - mail is from Dechert LLP , a law firm, and may cont ain i n format

3/28/2007

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 40 of 66
Exhibit J

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 41 of 66

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic
of
Greater Boston Legal Services, Inc.
and
, Harvard Law School

Deborah Anker Clinical Faculty/Attorney
Nancy Kelly Ce>-Managing Atty of Clinic/Manager of Unit
Jane Rocamora Clinical Supervisor/Senior Attorney

John Willshire-Carrera Co-Managing A tty of Clinic/Senior A 1
Jeroboam Tisme Clinical Assistant/Paralegal

3/2 6/ 2007

Honorable Chief Judge David L. Neal Office of the Chief Immigration Judge Executive Office of Immigration Review 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

RE: JESUS VICENTE LOPEZ, eta/ A 98 912 215

JANE DOE, et al JOINT MOTION TO RESCIND IN ABSENTIA REMOVAL ORDERS
AND REOPEN PROCEEDINGS, AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE STAY OF REMOVAL PROVIDED BY STATUE

Dear Chief Judge Neal:

On Friday, March 23, 2007. the Department of Homeland Security provided notification of its intention to immediately remove all Respondent's detained in the March 06,2007 Bianco factory (Operation United Front) raid with outstanding orders of removal (see attached Notice). Attached please tind, on behalf of those Respondents who remain unrepresented, including those listed above. Respondent's Joint Motion to Rescind in Absentia Removal Orders and Reopen Proceedings, and Acknowledgment of the Stay of Removal Provided by Statue and Certificate of Service.

Since1rely,

/

-#-{.lj~ ,I::Jlf!-( (}-Nt.)

Harvey
~aplan.

K&~,elp!ll,nivan

and

Fri.edman ...

~dtreilJ ~\ f lvJ' \

_ _ __GHif)e.aait'e<ri:BA~ OSto~ n Le~ gltl-g Serve icese Clinic of GBLS

Johilllw'H\sthle

Greater Boston Legal Services

(

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic ofGBLS

197 Friend Street, fih Floor, Boston, MA 02114- Phone: 617-603-1808- Fax: 617-371-1222

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 42 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-1 0471-RGS Document 21 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

NOLBERTA AGUILAR, SEBASTIAN AGUILAR,

)

THERESA AGUILAR, DIEGO AJPOP, 174 additional )

named Petitioners listed on Schedule A attached hereto, )

and others similarly situated,

)

)

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

)

)

V.

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration )

and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE, )

Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston )

Field Office, hnmigration and Customs Enforcement;

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of

)

Homeland Security; and ALBERTO GONZALEZ,

)

Attorney General of the United States,

)

)

Respondents and Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 07-1 0471-RGS
RESPONDENTS' NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXECUTE REMOVAL ORDERS

Respondents hereby provide advance notice to the Court of their intention to execute removal orders in cases covered by the Court's order where a detainee has accepted a final administrative order of removal in proceedings commenced after March 6, 2007, the date of the New Bedford worksite enforcement action, and bas waived appeal of that order. At this time, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") intends to remove 57 individuals who fall within this category, 43 from El Paso and 14 from Harlingen.
Efforts to obtain the necessary travel documents for removal of these final order detainees have now been successful, and ICE is now able to execute final orders of removal relating to these detainees.

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 43 of 66
Case 1:07-cv- 10471-RGS Document 21 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 2 of 3

Therefore, Respondents provide advance notice to the Court of the ICE intention to execute removal orders in 57 cases covered by the Court' s order where a detainee has accepted a final administrative order of removal in proceedings commenced after March 6, 2007, and where the detainee has w aived appeal of that order.
Additiona lly, during the March 21 , 2007, hearing, Respondents provided the Court with oral notice of their intent to remove all individuals with tinal administrative orders of removal pre-dating March 6, 2007 . Those removals, which total66 (50 from the Mass achusetts area, lO from El Paso, and 6 from Harlingen), are in progress.

Respectfully submitted,

March 23, 2007

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
United States Attorney

DAVID KLINE

Principal Deputy Director

MARK GRADY Assistant United States Attorney

By: s/Elizabeth J. Stevens
ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (VA 47443)
Attorney Office ofImmigration Litigation

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 0221 0
(617) 748-3100

Civil Division

United State s Department of Justice

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W._ _ _ _FRANK CROWLEY

Washington, D.C. 20044

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

(202) 616-9752

ICE Office ofChiefCounsel

Boston, Massachusetts

617-565-2415

F r a n k . C r o w l e y@ d h s .g o v

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 44 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 21 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as nonregistered participants on March 23, 2007.

By:

Is Elizabeth J. Stevens

ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (VA# 47443)

Attorney

Office oflrnmigration Litigation

Civil Division

United States Department of Justice

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W .

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 616-9752

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 45 of 66

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA

)

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

JESUS VICENTE LOPEZ

)

A 98 912 215

)

)

JHANN CARLOS MATUTE VALLECILLO )

A 94 797 912

)

)

DANIEL ANTONIO CARRANZA-FLORES )

A 200027715

)

) REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

JOSE ALBERTO GALILEO

)

A 99 665 243

)

)

.JOSE ALFREDO GUERRA-ALFARO

)

A 96 079 553

)

)

OSCAR PEREZ-VJVAS

)

A 98 599149

)

)

RICARDO MEZA-GARCIA

)

A99680341

)

)

SIGFREDO ARGUETA

)

A 99 523 489

)

)

JANE DOE

)

Respondents

)

)

______________________________))

JOINT MOTION TO RESCIND IN ABSENTIA REMOVAL ORDERS AND REOPEN PROCEEDINGS, AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE STAY OF
REMOVAL PROVIDED BY STATUE
Respondents, and Jane Doe, through legal counsel respectfully move the Chic::f Immigration Judge to acknowledge their stay of removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1229a (b)(5)(C)(ii), 8 C.F.R. §I 003.23(b)(4)(ii). Respondents were ordered removed in absentia by respective Immigration Courts and hereby seek review of their Removal Orders in order to be

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 46 of 66

given a fair opportunity to review the record for proper service of those presently not represented.

Respondents include all aliens, not presently represented by counsel. detained by USICE
on March 6, 2007 at the Bianco factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts during and as a result of Operation United Front who, on or prior to that date, had been issued In Absentia removal orders
by Immigration Courts of the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

On intormation and belief, numerous Respondents with in absentia removal orders were improperly served notice of their removal hearings. Respondents respectfully move the Chief lmmigration Judge acknowledge the stay or removal provided by statute pending a decision on
the motions pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) so that they may have a proper opportunity
to review their record for proper service, as well as to determine if they are eligible for other defenses from rcmoveability.

Respondents have also been denied full access to counsel after being detained on March 6, 2007 (see attached Petition/Complaint filed in Aguilar v. USICE, CA (Federal District Court of Massachusetts- No. 07-10471).

The Respondents request the Chief Immigration Judge to notify the Department of Homeland Security that a stay of removal is in etTect provided by statute for each and every Respondent.

Respondent respectfully requests a recision of their in absentia removal orders, a reopening of their proceedings and a stay of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §11229a(b)(5), 8 C.F.R. § l 003 .23(b)(4)(ii).

Respectfully submitted this

day of March, 2007.

Attorney for Respondents
~~~~ ( ~···\

Kaplfllk~'Sullivan and Friedman

Ten Winthrop Square

Boston, MA 0211 0

(,61., 7. ) 482-4500} /'
J ; {. L,c..--l ,or.:::~ V \.. .-··\
Nanc~L ~ell~ .

i.~
J·v.j~ ..
\

John Wi.Ush1re '

\, i

Greater Boston Legal Services ...'

197 Friend Street

Boston, MA 02114

(617) 603-1808/(617) 515-3042/3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 47 of 66

Case 1:07-cv-1 0471-RC¥?IV1i9~It-~H titqj 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 2

TtbiylheelcoJicSvail4l 4rducole.c-skieol tt~sochvoeeu.r:n\.s.hTe(SelutEs>EnlI.odNntShnTe, iailllplJfpCorTromtvOaeItd'iSobnOycNtohTneHtJaEui<nRhecEdohVoefi.rCReoiSnnEl~cOcr1fc1Tnh<cilr~Er.c,F{pOol;hR,ccMcU.n)noJtrcsdu~Sptaktmecs ntnttShcpctclimlitn>gcran1d97s4e.rvo.<icrecqouf~prlccdadfoinr gthseour socthoefrtphaepCc:rksr3kSorefCquoiurend

~y lor

low. c:<ccplas the purpo•c of

provided tnitia ting

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Carlos Enrique Aviia Sandoval, et a!.

DEFENDANTS .
fmmigration ami Cus~!iis':Enforcement Division of the Department
of Homeland Security. et af.

(b) County ofR~sidencc of rin:t Listed Pf~inllff Providence. RI
IEXCF.PT IN U.S. I'LAINiiFF CASES)

U.S. Count) of Residence ofl'ic~tl:.istCIJ!Defcno.lant . . ·. . . - . · "(iN rG.:NTlff CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND COI'lDliMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Auomcy"s (Fum N~rnc. Ad<lr..s. ami Telephone Number)

Bernard J. Bonn, III, Dechert LLP. 200 Clarendon St., 27th fl oor, Boston.

MA 02116
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION \Pbtc ""··x· in One Boll Only)

Ql U.S. GovCfTiment Plaintiff

0 3 Fed<:ral Questi<>n
(U.S. Government Not• P•rty)

Ill. cITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL ··x· pARTIES(i'lace ... In One Bo.t. ro, flaintilf
(for Diversity Cases Only)
~ofThiCl ~

U.~ . Gove:mmc-"t Defendant

C1 4 Dive,..ily (Indicate C~•=•hip of P•11i« •n hem Ill)

Ciliztn oC Another Stale

0 2 0 3 0 J Furei~n Nar iun

Cl 6 0 6

.IV NATURE OF SUIT {Pi•<• on""X"ioOnc Bo• Only)

I i;ON'ntAC:

D.!l!:D

mWII!JBf.I!(,N4W

a 0 110 Insurance n a (J 120 Mari~
0 IJ() Miller Atl 0 140 Negoll•blc lnstrumem 0 I~0 R.covery of Overpayment
J< Enforcomo:nl ofJlklgmo;nt
0 151 Mediur< Act 0 !52 Roco•ery ofO.faulto<.l
Sl\ldcnt Lo•ru
(Excl Vetcrant)
0 l H Recovery of Overpayment
o f VctC"r:ul'' 8endi1s
0 1~0 Stockllolders' Sutt' Cl 190 Other Contract
a 0 195 Conttoet Productl1obility
0 t96 frlll(htsc:
I !!!:~L PRQP~TY
0 210 Urld Condcmn>uon
0 220 FO<tdosure 0 230 Remln.le & Ej«:Ut1Ct>l 0 240 Tom to land
(J 245 Tort l'roclu<t Liability
0 290 All Other Real J>ropcrty

PERSONAL INJURY
J 10 Airpl>n<
0 ) l ~ !\if]>\one Pmduc.t
Li•bility
0 }lll Assou\1, Lobel &
Sland<r
0 HI) Fodcr•l C.rnploye.-.·
Lr•bil•ly (1 )40Marine
0 )45 Marine Pr<>du.:•
Lo>bilily
Ll HO Motor Vellicle 0 ) 55 Motor Vchicle
Product Liobilll)'
360 Other Personol

PERSONAL INJIJkY
)62 Per,.,~llnJUIY •
Med. Malpntli«
0 )6~ Pcrs•>nallnjury ·
Procluctliobility
0 J6~ AU..Sios Person•I
Inju ry J>roduct
wob•lioy
rE~NI\L I'ROPtRT\"
0 }70 Other Froud 0 }11 Truth in L<ndm& 0 380 Othtr Pe!>Of\OI
Property Damas'
0 385 Propcny ~·
l'rodurl Li>bility

lnj!!!}:

OYlLR!GHTS

I'RlSONf.R t!.TIDONS

C'l 4-41 Votina

0 SIO Motions to Vacote

0 442 Employmem

Scnteoce-

D 44) Houoingl

lhbru Corpw:

Ac~.:ommoda1iOM

0 5JOG<ner.&l

0 444 Welfan:

0 535 Death l'cnall)'

0 445 .-\mer. w/tn..bilities • 0 540 MIUidomuJ At Other

0 0
0 CJ CJ 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0

l\10 1\gri<:ulturc 620 Other F00o:l At Drug 62~ Unlg Rcla:ed Seizure
of Property 21 USC SBt 630 Liq1101 Law& t-40 R.R. & Tn«k 0~ f\lrline Ret:s. 660 O.:cupocior•l
S.fcty/Huth 6900lher
i.4iSlB
110 f•ir lol>or StM!duds
AtI 120 Lobor/Mgmt. Relations 131l lobo</Mgmt.Rr:portina
& DISclos..., A•~
740 R.oilway UIJOr Act 790 Other Labor L&tig•tion 791 Empl.llet. loc.
S<cllliry Acl

Employment

0 SS{) Civil Ri&ilb

0 4~ Amer. w/Oisabllities · (J SSS Prison Condil1on

Otloer

1!1 440 Other Civill!iJhlo

ll,o\NXRI.!D:~l:
0 412 Appul 2.11 USC IS& 0 423 Witlld:.wal
28 USC IS7
I:BQI:t:B:O: IU!:ilii:i 0 820 Copyria]lts 0 8)0h\OI\l
0 &40 Ttodcmark
~IAl. liiO,UBID: 0 861 HIA (ll95fl) o 862 Bl~<\ Luna (923> 0 86) DIWCIDIWW (405(s)) 0 164 SSIO Title XVI
0 865 RSI (40S(J))
rAX.sJJrrs 0 870 ToJ<ct (U.S. P~inttfT
or Dcftodani)
0 871 IRS-Third Pony
2~ USC1609

2I.Iit;B STAD.!IJ;:i j
0 400 Sutc lluwonionlll<'nl 0 410 Antil.rust
0 00 B•n\s and BoJ\l.ing 0 4SOComml"t<e 0 460 Deport.ll<>ll
0 470 Rockrt<er ln01>0n<:o:l and Cu""JlC Org.,izat>OT>•
(J 4~0 c.,n,..oncr Crcdll
0 490 Cable/Sat lV 0 g I0 Scf~c\J\'C Service 0 SSO Sc<:uriu<VCornrn.xlit•<Y
E.. chang<
0 875 cu..omcr Ch•llengc
t2 usc )4[0
0 890 Olhcr Suotutory AcuoN 0 891 Agricullunl Acts (J 392 Economic Stablli.-.uon ACI
a 893 Envirot>m<:>tsl Maners
0 894 E-JY /\!location Aet
0 89S Frt<dom of lnfom...aioo
Act
0 900Appeal orFco Dc~nninollo>n
Under Equal Acce..
to Juctic:o
0 950 Constilllliorlaluy of
Srat< SUIIIIU

V. ORIGIN !JI

Appeal to District

0

7

Judge from
Magisl1atc

Jud m t

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

CHECK II' THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F R.C.P.Zl
(Sco it>tlmctions):

DATE

03/08/2007

NLY

------------- -------- Rf.CElPT'

AMOUNT

APPLYJNG lfP

DEMAND$

CHI::CK YES o nly if dc!llilndcd m complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

0 Yes O No

OOC!<ET NUMBER

------ --------- JIJDOf

MAG. JUI)Gt:

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 48 of 66

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-2 Filed 03/08/2007
UNITED STATES DISlRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Page 2 of 2

1.

Title of cue (nama of first party on each side only) Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, et al. v. United States

Immigration

and

Customs

Enforcement

Division

of

the

Department
•

~f. HO,~Ilirid' Security,

••• -.. .

f

• ~~

~ ~ ~ .:

.. . .

.: ::

et

al.

-· 2. Category In which the caae belongs based upon the numbered natura of suit code.l,i{st..e. d on the civil cover sheet. (See local

tule 40.1(a)(1}).

': .

('

0

I.

0

II.

160,410, 470,535, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NAlURE OF SUIT.

195,196, 3611,400,440, 441-446, 540, 550, 555, 625, 710, ~~o;~ 740, 790, 791, 1120•. 830*, 840*, 850, 890. 892-a9-4, 895, 950. ·

·,.•Also (lc)rriplbJf;AO t20 or AO 121 · for patanr.~mark or copyright easn

0

Ill.

110,120,130,140, 151 , 190,210, 230, 240,245,290,310,
315, 320,330,)40, 345,350,355,360,362, 365,370,371,

380,385,450, 891.

0

IV.

220,422, 423,430,460, 480,490,510,530,610,620,630,640,650,660,
690, 810,661~5.870 , 871,875 , 900.

o CA 0 RGS 0 v.

150, 152, 153.

7.

1 471

3. Tltte and number, lf any, of related cas.•. (Seeloc:al rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior releted case hae bHn flltd In this district please IndiCate the title and number of the first flied case In this court.

0 [ l ) 4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the aame claim ever bean flied In thla court?

YES

NO

S. Does the complaint In this case question the constltlltionality of an act of congress affecting the public Interest? (See 28 USC

§2403)

0 YES

0 NO

If so, Is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employH of the U.S . a party?

0 YES

0 NO

D III 6. Is this case requlrtd to be heard and detennlned by a district court of three judges purauant to title 28 USC §22~?

YES

NO

7.

0 DMoa!.nl!cohfuthseetptasr(t"legaovIenrtnhmiseanctatiloang,aenxcclelusNdi)n, gregsoivdeinmgmInanMtealsasgaecnhculaeeattosfrtehseiduenIintetdhsetasatemse11dnidvtishieoCn?om· (mSo.n.wloecalatht

of Rule

40.1(d)).

YES

NO [{]

A.

If yes, lo which division do..!!! of the non-governmental parties reside?

0 Eastern Division

0 Central Division

0 Westem Division

8.

If no, In which divisiOn do the majority of the plaintiffs Of' the onty parties, excluding govammtntal agenclts,

reeldlngln Muaachu:setts reside?

Eastern Division

0 Central Division

0 Western Division

8. If filing a NotiCe of Removal ·Bit there any motions pending In the state court requiring the attention of thla Court? (If y. ..

submit a separata shHlldentlfylng the motions)

0 VES

0 NO

(PLEASE: TYPE OR PRINT)
ATIORNE'rS NAME Bernard J. Bonn, Ill ADDRESS 200 Clarendon St.. 27th floor. Boston, MA 0 2 11
TELEPHONE NO. (617) 728·7143

(Cai81JOr)'Fotm.wpd • 512105)

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 49 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 10

F

o

UNITED STATES DISTRICT col.fritr.F. ( .I
R THE msTRJcr oF MAssiAcii.usrns ;·

r

1!~

E

:.:) .. '": .. .. ... -
-------------------·-''-_.:!_--'-~--) :~

!·· () I
'

CARLOS ENRlQUE AVILA SANDOVAL, the Consul .
of Guatemala, as NEXT FRIEND ofTHREE-HUNDREJY '·.·. 'i ·
AND FIFTY NEW BEDFORD IMMIGRANT WORKERS
(a.k.a. JOHN/JANE DOE## 1-350),

) . . • '
.· )'.' .. ;'· ',;\.:; ··.
)
) )

Petitioners,

)

)

No. _ _ _ _ __

~ITEDSTATEsiMMIGRATio~b!sC& l 0!4 1!. RGB

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT

)

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS,

)

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration

)

and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE, Field

)

Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field

)

O ffice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL

)

CanHdEARLTBOEFRFT, SOeGcrOetNarZyA, DLeEpSa,rtAmtteonrtnoefyHGoemneerlaalnodfStehceurity..;~

-:T!::r:

)
JUDGE~

United States,

)

)

Respondents.

)

------------------------------~-------)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Th1s is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, the Consul of Guatemala, as Next Friend and on
behalf of Petitioners John/Jane Doe## l-350 ("Petitioners"). Petitioners, acting on their own
and through their N ext Friend, seek a class writ and declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy
violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Petitioners are approximately three
hundred-fifty New Bedford immigrants whose identities remain unknown at this time due to the ex.pedited manner in which Respondent Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 50 of 66 Case 1:07~cv-1 0471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 10
4. Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Petitioners' Next Friend, is the Consul of Guatemala for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Petitioner Sandoval has personally visited and met with Petitioners detained at Fort Devens following the March 6, 2007 raid.
S. Respondent ICE, the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for eliminating vulnerabilities in the nation's border, and with economic, transportation and infrastructure security. DHS is charged with, among other things, administering the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("USICE") and implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, it has decisionmaking authority over the matters alleged in this Petition and Petitioners' custody.
6. Julie L. Myers ("Myers"), is the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
7. Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States and is responsible for the administration of ICE and the implementation and enforcement of the immigration laws. As such, he is the ultimate legal custodian of Petitioners.
8. Michael Chertoff is Secretary ofthe Department of Homeland Security and has delegated his authority to administer the laws of the United States to ICE, a component of the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security.
9. Respondent Bruce Chadbourne is the Field Office Director for Detention and Removal in the Boston Field Office of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and has legal custody of the Petitioners.
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 51 of 66
Case 1:07-cv~10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 10
10. Petitioners appear to have been taken into custody by ICE on March 6, 2007 from
their place ofemployment. 11. The exact number of Petitioners taken into custody is not specifically known.
Based on media reports, it appears that approximately 350 persons were seized. 12. According to various media reports, Petitioners were taken into custody because
ofinvestigations concem.lng the working conditions. According to a news release posted on the
ICE website on March 6, 2007: Boston - Early this morning in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement-led investigation, federal authorities executed a search warrant at the New Bedford business Michael Bianco, Inc. (MBI). The owner of the company and three managers were arrested on charges in connection with alleged hiring ofillegal aliens. Another individual was arrested on charges that he provided fraudulent identification documents to workers at the factory,
annoWlced United States Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Julie L. Myers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent in charge
Bruce M. Foucart. 13. Petitioners are or were being held at Fort Devens in Devens, MA. According to media reports, Petitioners are or were being held at the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area
within Fort Devens. 14. On information and belief, as a result of the raid, approximately 100 children of
Petitioners were stranded with baby sitters, caretakers, and others. Advocates have collected the
names of 70 detained parents of minor children and estimate that as many as 21 0 children might
have been affected . Lawyers and advocates in Massachusetts have begun the task of assisting in providing care for the children. Transferring the parents of these children would significantly
hamper this process.
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 52 of 66
Case 1:07~cv~10471~RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 10
15. The families and children affected by the Petitioners' detention have already suftered the fear and hardship of having a loved one detained almost 100 miles away. Any further transfer would only add to this hardship. Upon infonnation and belief, many of the spouses and children of the detained Petitioners are in the United States legally and many arc Untied States citizens.
16. On infonnation and belief, some of Petitioners appear to be indigenous Guatemalan women who may be retraumatized by separation from their families, given the history of massacres and persecution that decimated indigenous communities in that country.
17. On information and belief, Petitioners have been or will be transported out of this District to remote locations in Texas and other distant jurisdictions to be charged administratively and placed in removal proceedings. Upon information and belief, over a dozen lawyers have met with some of the Petitioners and have established relationships with them. Transferring Petitioners outside of Massachusetts, and especially to Texas, which is over 2,300 miles away, would substantially hamper Petitioner's access to these lawyers.
18. On information and belief, pro bono counsel from local bar associations and nonprofit legal services providers have organized to respond to the detainees' needs for legal rights information, legal advice and counsel, and representation, but due to the massive numbers of immigrants arrested by Defendants at one time, these resources cannot be deployed effectively without a reasonable amount of time for attorneys accompanied by language-appropriate interpreters to adequately interview each detainee prior to the detainees' imminent transfer to remote facilities out of this court's jurisdiction.
19. Significantly, some detainees are Ouatamalan and Salvadorans, according to media reports, and may not even be properly subjected to detention under the terms of a national
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 53 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 10
class action lawsuit, as reflected in the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Centra) American Relief Act (NACARA) and American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) ("ABC'), or pursuant to the injunction issued in Orantes~Hernandez v. 1\tfesse, 685 F. Supp. 1488 (C.D. Cal. 1988), aff'd, 919 F.2d 549 {9th Cir. 1990). These agreements arose in response to civil wars and horrific conditions in those countries, and many Salvadorans and Guatemalans stilt have bonafide asylum claims arising from those horrific conditions. However, this cannot even be determined by the lawyers struggling to conduct aU the interviews before the detainees are transferred to remote locations out ofthis Court's jurisdiction.
Claims for Relief
Count I (Constitutional Claim) 20. Petitioners allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-19. 21. Respondents are liable for the conduct of the agencies they administer. 22. By the actions described above, Respondents, acting under color oflaw, have violated and continue to violate the right of the detained Petitioners to be free from arbitrary prolonged and indefinite detention, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 23. To the extent that Petitioners' detention is without basis in law or fact and violates common law principles of due process and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Petitioners' detention is unlawful. 24. Respondents have violated Petitioners' right to consult with counsel by denying them access to counsel or any means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner. This
6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 54 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-1 0471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 7 of 10
includes a meaningful opportunity to make decisions concerning the care of their children, a task for which proper access to counsel is fundamental.
Count II (Statutory Claim) 25. Petitioners allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I-24. 26. Respondents' actions violate the INA.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:

l. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

2.

Issue process to the respondents with an order to show cause why the writ should

not be granted;
3. Order declaratory, habeas and injunctive relief as well as any other relief the court

may deem appropriate, including but not limited to

(a) Immediate release, or (b) A reasonable period of time, prior to any out-of-district transfer, for

detainees to obtain a meaningful opportunity to meet with counsel and

have confidential communications; to be fully advised of their rights to

remain silent and have counsel; to seek relief under NACARA, the ABC

Agreement, or Orantes, where applicable, or release on bond or personal

recognizance; and to have counsel identify any derivative United States

citizens and bonafide asylum seekers;

7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 55 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-1 0471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 8 of 10

4.

Enjoin Respondents from transferring Petitioners out of this District until they

have been afforded their full statutory and constitutional rights and ordering the return to this

District any Petitioners who have already been transferred; and

5.

Grant such other relief as the Court may deem nece:;sary and appropriate to

protect Petitioners' rights under the common law, the United States Constitution, and federal

statutory law.

8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 56 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-1 0471-RGS Document 1-1 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 9 of 10

Dated: March 8, 2007

Counsel for Petitioners and Peti ·

Address of Petitioners' Next Friend:
Consul ofGuatemala 754 Branch Ave, Suite 201 Providence, RI 02904 ( 401) 270-6345

emard C. ~o , II (BBO # 049140) Michael Shi (BBO #658134) DECHERT LLP
tn 200 Clarendon Street, 27 Floor Boston, MA, 02116 (617) 728-7100
Nancy Kelly (BBO # 44562) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend St. Boston, MA 02114 (617) 371-1234
John Willshire (BBO # 547200) GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend Street boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1808
Harvey Kaplan (BBO # 258640) KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN AND FRIEDMAN Ten Winthrop Square Boston, MA 0211 0 (617) 482-4500
Ondine Sniffin (BB0#638899) Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc. 1600 Bay St. Fall River, MA 02724 (508) 674-4681
9

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 57 of 66
Case 1:07-cv-1047~-RGS Document 1-1 Filed03/08/2007 Page 10of 10 VERIFICATION
The foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge, infonnation, and belief. Sworn to under the pains and penalties of peJjury, this gth day of March 2007.
10

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS
u.s. lkpllrtment or Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
lmmigrmimt Court

Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 58 of 66
OMB#l 125-0006
Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Immigration Court

I hereby enter my appearance as attorney or representative for, and at the request of, the following named person(s):

NAME: (S" attached Uat)
(First)

(Middle Initial)

(Last)

ADDRESS: Detained by ICE
(Number & Street)

(Apt. No.)

DATE (mmldd/yy): 0312612007
ALIEN NUMBER(S) (List lead
alien number and all family member
alien numbers and names, if applicable. Continue on next page as needed.)
Seeattac"-d

(City)

(State) Please check one of the following:

(Zip Code)

I am a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court(s) of the following state(s), possession(s), tenitory(ies),
commonwealth(s), or District of Columbia:

FuU Name or Court Supreme Judicial Court

o State Bar No. (if applicable) ,N.4- ~s- 2) b '-~

(Please use space on the reverse side to list additional jurisdictions.)
rxl ! I I am not (or am- explain fully on reverse side) subject to any order of any court or administtative agency
d@{arring, suspe'iiafng, enjoining, restraining, or otherwise restricting me in the practice of law and the courts listed above comprise all of the jurisdictions (other than federal courts) where I am licensed to practice law.
I am an accredited representative of the following qualified non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization established in the United States, so recognized by the Executive Office for Immigration Review pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.2 (provide name of organization):

I am a law student or law graduate, reputable individual, accredited official, or other person authorized to represent individuals pursuaut to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1 (explain fully on reverse side.)

I have read and undustand t~ statements provided on tM reverse side ofthis form that set fonlt the regulatioru and conditions governing appearanus cutd representation before the Immigration Coun. 1 declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that the foregoing is true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF ATIORNEY OR REPRESENTATJVE
X //_.~.L~-4... {&.,c.C;~ / i~ c\

EOIR ID#
I

IDATE (rnmlddlyy)
0312612007

NAME OF ATIORNEY OR RE~ENT.('TIVE (type or print)

ADDRESS

0 Check. here if new address

Harvey Kaplan K•plan, O'Sulllv•n and Friedman

10 Winthrop Square Bo•ton

MA 02110

PHONE NUMBER (with area code) (617) 482-4500

FAX NUMBER (with area code) (617) 371-1222

fonn£01R·l8 Rev. Oct 2006

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 59 of 66

1 Harvey Kaplan

(N1111le)

Proof of Service
mailed or delivered a copy of the foregoing Form EOIR-28 oo 0_31_28I2::-0-07_~-:-:--:----­
(Date-mmlddfyy)

to the DHS (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement -ICE) at J.F.K. Federal Building, Government Centll' Bo.ton, MA
(Number and Street, City, State, Zip Code)

APPEARANCES - An appearance shall be filed on a Form EOIR-28 by the attorney or representative appearing in each case before
an Immigration Judge (see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17). When an appearance is made by a person acting in a representative capacity, his/her
personal appearance or signature shall constitutes a representation that. under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. part 1003, heJshe is authorized and qualified to represent individuals. Thereafter, substitution or withdrawal may be permitted upon the approval of the Immigration Judge of a request by the attorney or representative of record in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17(b). Please note that appearances for limited purposes are not permitted. See Matter of Velasquez. 191&N Dec. 377, 384 (BIA 1986). A separate appearance form (Form EOIR-27) must be ftled with an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(g)). Further proof of
authority to act in a representative capacity may be required.
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS -During the time a case is pending, a party to a proceeding or his/her attorney Of representative shall be permitted to examine the Record of Proceeding in the Immigration Court having administrative control over the Record of Proceeding, in accordance with the standard procedures of the Court.
REPRESENTATION - A person entitled to representation may be represented by any of the following:
(1) Attorneys in the United States as defined in 8 C.P.R. § lOOl.l(f). (2) Law students and law graduates not yet admitted to the bar as defined in 8 C.P.R. § 1292.l{a)(2). (3) Reputable individuals aa defined in 8 C.P.R.§ 1292.1(a)(3). (4) Accredited representative as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.l(a)(4). (5} Accredited official! as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(5).
All representatives mll$t comply with the specific requirements to represent aliens before the Board of Immigration Appeals. For more information on the requirements, see 8 C.P.R. § 1292.1 and the particular subsections referenced above as applicable. Note that Jaw students and law graduates must submit additional materials pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.l(a)(2).
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACf · This form may not be used to request records under the Freedom of Information Act or the
Privacy Act. The manner of requesting such records is contained in 28 C.F.R. U 16.1 - 16.11 and appendices. For further information
about requesting records from the EOIR under the Freedom of Infonnatiou Act. sec How to File a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request With the Executive Office for Immigration Review, available through the EOIR's website at http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir.
CASES BEFORE THE EOIR • Automated information about cases before the EOlR is available by calling 1-800-898-7180.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

(Please attach additional sheets of paper if necessary.)
Under tbe Paperwork Reduction Act. a person is not required 10 respond 10 a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We try to
create forms aod insttuctions that are accurate, can be easily understood. and which impose the least possible burden 011 you to proved us with information. The estimated average time to complete this form is six (6) minutes. If you have comments regardin& the accuracy of this estimale, or suggestions for making this form simpler, you can write to the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Office of General Counsel, 51 07 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 22041.
Form EOIR • 28
Rev. Oct 2006

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 60 of 66
ATTACHMENT TO EOIR-28 FOR HARVEY KAPLAN, NANCY KELLY AND JOHN
LIST OF RESPONDENTS DETAINED ON 3/06/07 AT BIANCO FACTORY IN NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS WHO HAVE OUTSTANDING ORDERS OF REMOVAL AND ARE OTHERWISE UNREPRESENTED.
JESUS VICENTE LOPF.Z
A 98 912 215
JHANN CARLOS MATUTE VALLECILLO
A 94 797 912
DANIEL ANTONIO CARR..Ai~ZA-FLORES
A 20027715
JOSE ALBERTO GALILEO A 99 665 243
JOSE ALFREDO GUERRA-ALFARO
A 96 079-553
OSCAR PEREZ-VIVAS
A 98 599 149
RICARDO MEZ.~-GARCIA
A 99 680 341
SIGFREDO ARGUETA
A 99 523 489
JA.,"lE DOE, et at

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS
U.S. Department of Justh:e Executive Office for Inunigration Review Immigration Coun

Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 61 of 66
OMBilll25-0006
Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Immigration Court

I hereby enter my appearance as attorney or representative for, an<l at the request of, the following named person(s):

NAME: (See an.ched ll•t)
(First)

(Middle Initial)

{Last)

ADDRESS: Detaln.ct by ICE
(Nwnber & Street)

(Apt. No.)

DATE (mmldd/yy): 0312612007
ALIEN NUMBER(S) (List lead alien number and all family member alien numbers and names, if applica- · ble. Continue on next page~ needed.)
s.. attllched

~1.
Oz.

(City)

(State) Please check ooe of the following:

(Zip Code)

l am a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court(s) of the following state(s), possession(s), territory(ies), cornmonwealth(s). or District of Columbia:

Full Name of Court Supreme Judicial Court

Stat& Bar No. (lf appUc:able) 544562

'I .
(Please use space on the reverse side to list additional jurisdictions.)
I 1)(1 am not (orn am- explain fully on reverse side) ~ubject to any order of any court or administrative agency
dfso"arring, suspe'iiafng, enjoining. restraining, or otherwise restricting me io the practice of law and the courts listed above comprise all of the jurisdictions (other tban federal couru) where I am licensed to practice law.

I am an acc~ted representative ofthe followins qualified n<lll-profit religious, charitable; social service, or similar organit.ation established in the United States, so recognized by the Executive Office for Immigration Review pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.2 (provide name of organization):

I am a Jaw student or law graduate, reputable individual, accredited official, or other person authorized to represent individuals pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1 (explain fully on reverse side.)

1 have read and urukrstand the statements provided on the reverse side ofthis form that set forth the regulatioru and conditiotU governing appearances and representation before the Immigration Court. I declore untiLr penalry ofpujury under the laws ofthe

Uniud States ofAmerica that the foregoing is true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF AITORNEY OR REPRESENTATIVE

X

1/' ~'1 ~

/ /
~;GJ.)C2 ( ~(.)

EOIRIDI
I

IDATE (mmldd/yy) 0312812007

NAME OF AITORNJ2~0R REPRES~TATIVE (type or print)

ADDRESS

0 Check here if new address

Nancy Kelly Harvard Immigration Clinic at GBLS

197 Friend St Boaton

MA 02114

PHONE NUMBER (with area code) (617) 603-1808

FAX NUMBER (with area code) {617) 371-1222

Farm EOIR-28 Rev. Oc:L 2006

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 62 of 66

1 N•ncyKelly

(Name)

Proof of Service

mailed

or delivered a

copy of the foregoing

Form

EOIR-28

on

°3_1-2-6:1:2=0-0_7_~":":'""'"--:--­ (Da~e-mm/ddlyy)

) to the DHS (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement- ICE.) at J.F.K. Federll Building, Government Center Boston, MA i;:m~ aDd Street. Ci~, State, Zip Code)

X

j__==-,fj_~ ('iW' \

Signature or Attorney or .epresentati; ·

...../

Aapqo(liFneufmProaaIsPilrmotimrEefnemidAqaeEldiupRgOeaurtAspoaIrtRpptNriboeo-eyCsa2pner7rEtasJeh)nSusaemcdereaengu-tteotsnAotior(nrbnstnsdeeiepaiegvyepfnii8rpldaomeetCurduaiart.rrFtlewaeesp.n.dRisrtcT.hhe.esah§aelselnnhr1cetaa0aoSalp0tlfneipt3vbesee.teer1aiM,t7lofusia)tftlu.eoelrtbWdseetschraothoeinoterrufeBdnatVpioeiaroFnaelnnorsaadrea.ocmnpsorctpqofwaE~ertIzaiiOdmto.rhaanImndRncrtci-ahge2e1war8w9aita,stIibilt&uomyhmnnNatd8hadAeyeCDerpba.tebpFhtecyte.e.oRpaar3ple.ns7rpr§eom7(ey8v,r1isit3oC0sot8eri0n.od4P3rnea..u(sRp1cBpt7ro.ieoI(nf§Asbng8e)It.n1ihC0nPt9ea0.l8Fat3eai6.v.aprR3)see.p8e.pAra(prongpeavo)pssr)aeteet.elpnaF1oarttha0iurfnata0ritgtttvh3ehaee,ieanphrIcppemeappe/apsremacohaarlcioeartgainfctirnyoscaace,stafeisehuoiffbntsohoe/roJrhfmuroeidrrzegeed and authority to act in a representative capacity may be required.

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS shall be permitted to examine the Record

DofuPrirnogcetheeditnimg einatchaesIemismpigenradtiinogn,Caopuarrttyhatvoinagpraodcmeeindiisntgraotirvheisc/ohnetrroalttoovrnereythoerRreepcroersdeontfative

Proceeding, in accordance with the standard procedures of the Cowt.

REPRESENTATION - A person entitled to representation may be represented by any of the following:

(I)
(2)

Auomeys in the United States as defined in 8 C.F.R. § Law students and law graduates not yet admitted to tbe

1001.1((). bar as defined

in

8

C.F.R.

§

1292.1(a)(2).

as (3) Reputable individuals as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(3).
(4) Accredited representative defined in 8 C.F.R. 11292.1(a)(4).

(5) Acaed.ited officials as defined in 8 C.F.R.fl292.1(a)(S).

AidnelflnotrrsempaarnetdisoeJnnawtoantgivtrhaeedsurmeaqtueusstirmceomumsetpnsltyus,bwsmeiteiht 8atdhCed.iFstip.oRen.cai§lfimc12ra9etqe2r.u1iiaralesnmdpeuntrhtsseuaptonatrrtetiopcru8elsaCern.sFtu.Rabls.ieetcnts1io2bn9es2fo.r1ree(faet)rh(ee2n)cB.eodaradboovfeImasmaipgpralitcioanblAe.pNpoeatelst.hFaot rlamwosretu-

FPaRbRreiovqEuuaEtceryDsetqAOWucMeit.tshtTOinthhFgeerImEeNcxaFonerOcnduesRtrifMvoroefAmrOeTqftfIhuiOeceesNEtifOnoArgIRCIsmuIu'cmnhd-iegrTerrachtthoiisreodnfFsomRrimse:cvdmoioenmawtya,oinanfoveltadnbiflioeanrbum2lse8aettdChiort.Fooou.rARge.hcq§tu,t§ehssee1teE6r.eHO1coIo-Rwrd1's6tso.wu1Fen1bidlaseenirtadethFaaerptepFheertdnteoped:mdi/c/oweomswf.oIwFnfof.uIornsrffdmuoorratjmth.igoeaorntivionA/nefcooAtirrm(.cFtaOotirIoAtnh)e

CASES BEFORE TIIEEOIR -Automated information about cases before the EOIR is available by calling 1-800-898-7180.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

(Please attach additional sheets of paper if necessary.)
Ucesirsnmetidampteelraetfrteo,hdreymoaPusvaeapcrnaeadnrgweiwootrsirmikttreueRe1e10td0iotuchncoestmiEtohpxnaleetActaeucrtteti.hvaaiescpcOfeuofrrrfsamiocteoei,sifcsosarinnxolmbt(e6rme)eqimagusriiinarleytuidtoueotsno.dRrIeeefnsvytpiooeouowodd.b,aO1avf0nfeJdaCccCowomhoUifmceGhcetnieimontoseprrooaesflgeiCanrtofdhouiernnmglseeatalht,sieot5·npIlIo0IuCs7nCsliuLebrsaelseceysibtboudufrridtsghepinPlsai0yek1ss1et,iaymSovuuaaitlt1eie0d, 2poO6rroM0svu0Beg,dgFceausoltsailOstwrOCoit$lhhunfioruncrmfhom,bneVanrkia.irlugWigoineotih.atriTs2yh2f1e0o04rm1.
Form EOIR • 28
Rev. Oct. 2006

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 63 of 66
ATTACHMENT TO EOIR-28 FOR HARVEY KAPLAN, NANCY KELLY AND JOHN
LIST OF RESPONDENTS DETAINED ON 3/06/07 AT BIANCO FACTORY IN NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS WHO HAVE OUTSTANDING ORDERS OF REMOVAL AND ARE OTHERWISE UNREPRESENTED.
JESUS VICENTE LOPEZ A 98 912 215
JHANN CARLOS MATUTE VALLECILLO A 94 797 912
DANIEL ANTONIO CARRANZA-FLORES A 20027715
JOSE ALBERTO GALILEO A 99 665 243
JOSE ALFREDO GUERRA-ALFARO A 96 079-553
OSCAR PEREZrVIVAS A 98 599 149
RICARDO MEZA-GARCIA A 99 680 341
SIGFREDO ARGUETA A 99 523 489
JANE DOE, et al

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS
U.S. Deputment of J1utlce Executive Oftice for Immigration R~view lmmlgratlun Court

DocumOMenB#t I2I225--20006Filed 03/28/07 Page 64 of 66
Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Immigration Court

I hereby enter my appearance as attorney or representative for, and at the request of, the following named person(s):

NAME: SEE ATTACHED UST
(first)

(Middle Initial)

(Last)

DATE tmnv'ddlyy): 0312112007
ALIEN NUMBER(S) {list lend alien number and all family member alien numbers and nam~:S, ifapplicable. Continue on next page as n~.)
SMUat

ADDRESS: ~(N~u~mb~er~& -Str-eet-) --------------------(A-pt~. N~o.)~~

1253 t.

(City)

(State)

(Zip Code)

Please check one of the following:

l am a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court(s) of the following state(s), polllieSsion{s), tenitory(ies), commonwealth(s), or District of Columbia:

Full Name of Court SJC of the Commonw. .lth of Mau.

State Bar No. (If applicable) 547200

Oz.

(Piense use space on the reverse side to list additional jurisdictions.)
11)(1 am not (odl am - explain fully on reverse side) subject to any order ofany court or tldministrative agency d~rring, SUsPen~ng, enjoining. restraining. or otherwise restricting me in the practice of law and the courts listed above
comprise all of the jurisdictions (other than federal courts) where I am licensed to practice law.
I am an accredited representative ofthe following qualified non-profit religious, charitable. social service. or similar organization established in the United States, so recognized by the Executive Office for Immigration Review pursullnt to 8 C.F.R. ~ 1292.2 (provide name of organization):

I am a law student or law graduate, reputable individual, accredited official, or other penon authorized to represent individuals pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1 (explain fully on reverse side.}

I have read and understand the statemenlS provided on the reverse side ofthis form that setforth the rcg11/otions and conditioru governing appearances and representation before the Immigration Court. 1 declare under penalty ofperjury 11nder the laws ofthe
United States ofAmerica that the foregoing is 1n1e and correct.

( NAME QF ATIORNEY OR REPRESENTATIVE (type or print)

I

•
John

~llI shlre

Har. lmmlg. & R•f. Clinic of GBLS

EOIRIO#
I ADDRESS
197 Fr..nd St. Boston

IDATE (mm/ddlyy) 3/~fo7
:J Check here if new address
MA 02114

PHONE NUMBER (with area code) 617-603-1808/817

FAX NUMBER (with area code)
617-371-1222

h Jnn liOIR·28 Rev. Oct. ~~~

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 65 of 66

1 John Willshire

(Nam~)

Proof of Service
mail«! or lklivcr«! a copy ofthe foregoina Fonn EOIR-28 on

- -0- : = : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - to

th~

DHS

{U.S.

Imm•g·r:~tt· on

--·• c
..,,.. tUtoms

En1.orcl.!ltlcnt

-

ICE)

t Room
~a .

425,

JFK

Building, Gov. C•nt•r, Boston, MA 02203
IN'!~· Cicy, State. Zip Code)

X

-~~---J~2S--&QQ_

(

Signa~ of Attorney or Representative

APPEARANCES - An appearanc.: shall be tiled on a Fonn EOIR-28 by the attorney or representative appearing in each case bdore
an Immigration Judge (see 8 C.F.R. § I003.17). When an appearance is made by a person acting in a representative capacity, his/her personal appearance or signature shall constitute:r a representation that. undet' the provisions of8 C.F.R. port 1003. he/she is authorized and qualified to represent individuals. Thercuftet', substitution or withdrawal mny be permitted upon the approval of the Immigration Judge
of a request by the attorney or representative of record in accordance with 8 C.F.R. ~ I003.17{b). Please note that appearances tor limited purposes are not permitted. See Matter of Velasquez, 19 I&N Dec. 377. 384 {BIA 1986). A separate appearance fonn
(fonn EOIR-27) must be filed with an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (8 C.f.R. § 1003.38(g)). Funher proof of authority to act in a representative capacity may be required.
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS - During the time a case is pending, a pany to a proceeding or hi!ll'her attorney or rqm:sentative shall be permitted to examine the Record of Proceeding in the Immigration Court having administrative control over the Record of Proceeding. in accordance with the standard procedures ofthe Court.
REPRESENTATION • A person entitled to representation may be represented by any ofthe following:
(I) Attorneys in the United States as defined in 8 C.f.R. § IOOI.l(t). (2) Law students and law graduates not yet admitted to the bar as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(2). (3) Reputable individuals as detined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(a)(3). (4) Accredited ~tative as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.l(aX4). l5) Accredited officials as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.l(a)(5).
All representatives must comply with the specific requirement:! to represent aliens befo~ the Board of Immigration Appeals. For mo~ information on the requirements. sec 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1 and the panicular subsections referenced above as applicable. Note that law stu-
dents and law graduates must submit additional materials pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1 (a)(2).
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT -This tonn may not be used to request records under the Freedom oflnfonnation Act or the Privacy Act. The manner of requesting such recorda is contained in 28 C.F.R. !I§ 16.1 - 16.11 and appendices. For further information about requesting records from the EOIR undet' the Freedom of lntonnation Act. see How to File a Freedom of lntbrmarion Act (FOIA) Request With the Executive Office for Immigration Review. available through the EOIR's website at http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir.
CASES BEFORE THE EOIR -Automated information about cases befo~ the EOIR is available by calling l-800-898-7180.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

(Please attach additional sheets of papt:r if necessary.)
Under the Papcrw~ R«<ucrion Act. a po!fSOO is no1 rt!qUircl to rnpond to a collection uf in!Onnation unl.:ss it displays a valid OMB control number. Wo: try to ~reate tonns and inslniCtions that are :k.'Ctuatc. can be ~-asily understood. and which impose the least possible burden on you to proved us with information. The estimated aver.tge time to complete this form is six I6) minut;:a. Ifyou have comments repdina the accuracy ofthis c:stimate. or suggestions for making this form
simp!~. you can write to the Ex~utiveOff~ee tar lmmiiJ'Ution Review. Office ofG.:neraiC'oun$el. 5107la:sburJ Pike. Suite lbOO. Falls Church, Virginia 22041.
F•>rm EOIR- 28 Rev. 0.:1. Z006

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 22-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 66 of 66
ATTACHMENT TO EOIR-28 FOR HARVEY KAPLAN, NANCY KELLY AND JOHN
LIST OF RESPONDENTS DETAINED ON 3/06/07 AT BIANCO FACTORY IN NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS WHO HAVE OUTSTANDING ORDERS OF REMOVAL ANO ARE OTHERWISE UNREPRESENTED.
JESUS VICENTE LOPEZ A 98 912 215
JHANN CARLOS MATUTE VAI,LECILLO A 94 797 912
DANIEL ANTON10 CARRANZA-FLORES A 20027715
JOSE ALBERTO GALILEO A 99 665 243
JOSE ALFREDO GUERRA-ALFARO A 96 079-553
OSCAR PEREZ...VIVAS A 98 599 149
RICARDO MEZA-GARCIA A 99 680 341
SIGFREDO ARGUETA A 99 523 489
JANE DOE, et al

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

________________________________________________

)

NOLBERTA AGUILAR, et al.,

)

)

Petitioners and Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )

ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

)

)

Respondents and Defendants.

)

________________________________________________)

C.A. No. 07-10471-RGS

RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Since the U.S. District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioners’ challenges

to their removal, the Court should not issue a temporary restraining order. Furthermore,

Respondents do not agree that the document Plaintiffs attached to their motion as Exhibit J is a

filing with an Immigration Court that would result in an “automatic stay” of any removal order.

Lastly, Petitioners’ discovery requests are far beyond the scope and specific discovery authorized

by this Court on March 21, 2007.

ARGUMENT

A. Pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231

(“RIDA”), this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to afford injunctive relief. Congress has

eliminated any and all district court jurisdiction (in habeas or otherwise) to entertain challenges

to the validity of any action taken to effect removal of an alien and/or of orders of removal and

provided for exclusive jurisdiction for such claims in the courts of appeal. Petitioners’ recourse

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 8
is to reopen their proceedings before the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration
Appeals, and, should such a motion fail, seek review of that decision in the appropriate court of
appeals.
On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the RIDA which, among other things,
amends certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Congress amended
the judicial review provisions of the INA to explicitly provide that jurisdiction to review the
validity and execution of any and all removal orders lies exclusively in the United States Circuit
Courts of Appeals. Section 106(a)(1)(B) of the RIDA creates a new INA section 242(a)(5), 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5):
(5) EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e). For purposes of this Act, in every provision that limits or eliminates judicial review or jurisdiction to review, the terms `judicial review' and `jurisdiction to review' include habeas corpus review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and review pursuant to any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory).
Id.
Section 106(a) of the RIDA explicitly and unequivocally eliminates habeas jurisdiction in
the district courts to entertain any challenge to the validity or execution of a removal order.
Specifically, Section 106(a)(2) of the RIDA amends 8 U.S.C. §1252(9) to provide:
CONSOLIDATION OF QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEWJudicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this
2

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 8
title shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact.
Id. Section 106(a)(3) of the RIDA further amends 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to provide:
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.--Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory) including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act.
Id. (amendments italicized).
The sum and substance of these amendments is to make explicit that no court other than
the court of appeals has any subject matter jurisdiction respecting “all questions of law and fact,
including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from
any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States,” and
respecting “any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by
the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders
against any alien under this [INA].” See INA sections 242(b)(9) and 242(g), codified at 8 U.S.C.
§1252(b)(9) and (g), respectively, as amended by the RIDA.
With respect to aliens whose removal orders are final, the Petitioners seek to challenge
the validity of those orders. Similarly, to the extent that the Petitioners would contest the validity
of any individuals’ choice to waive proceedings, such a claim is a challenge to the validity of that
order or removal. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain such claims or to enter
3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 8
a stay based upon such claims. Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2005) (“The plain language of these amendments, in effect, strips the district court of habeas jurisdiction over final orders of removal, including orders issued prior to enactment of the Real ID Act. . . . Congress now has definitively eliminated any provision for jurisdiction.”); Tejada v. Cabral, 424 F. Supp. 2d 296, 298 (D. Mass. 2006) (“Congress made it quite clear that all court orders regarding alien removal -- be they stays or permanent injunctions -- were to be issued by the appropriate court of appeals.”). (Emphasis added).
Congress has expressly provided that their remedy lies in another court, yet, Petitioners do not even attempt to address or distinguish these provisions. See, e.g., Do Canto v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 21078115, *1 (D. Mass. 2003) (“because there exists a specific statutory review process for such claims, there is no basis to invoke habeas corpus jurisdiction to provide a duplicative means of review or vary that which Congress has provided.”). Unsatisfied with the remedy Congress has provided, these Petitioners have simply filed, seriatim, multiple requests for injunctions in this Court. Indeed, both Respondents and this Court have been forced to endure repetitive filings as to issues that have previously been addressed (or that could have been addressed) in the two prior hearings seeking preliminary injunctions which sought, inter alia, to enjoin Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials from going forward with removal proceedings.1
1 The instant circumstances are not an “emergency,” they are the logical progression of removal proceedings against individuals not lawfully in the United States, a stay of which has been previously denied by this Court. The Petitioners, Respondent would suggest, are not entitled to seek new restraining orders, ad infinitum, simply because the aliens’ removal proceedings go forward in their normal course.
4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 8
B. Petitioners claim that their alleged filing of a joint motion to reopen with the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge suffices to stay the removals of those with pre-existing orders of removal entered in absentia. Although a properly filed motion to reopen and rescind an in absentia order may result in an automatic temporary stay of removal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(1)(v) and/or (b)(4)(ii), an alien who properly files a motion to reopen before an immigration judge may always request an affirmative stay of removal from the IJ, and so not have to depend solely on any "interpretation" of the effect of the motion as an operation of law. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(v). Petitioners make no showing that they have exhausted this administrative remedy.
In any event, the “letter” sent by Petitioners to Chief Immigration Judge David Neal is not properly filed. See Exhibit 1, DHS response dated March 27, 2007. The regulations require that motions to reopen be filed with the immigration court having control over the Record of Proceedings, i.e., the immigration court that issued the order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(ii). The sole exception provided in the regulations is where the immigration judge who issued the removal order is unavailable or unable to adjudicate the motion; in these instances, once the motion to reopen is properly filed with the individual immigration court, the Chief Immigration Judge may assign the motion to reopen to another immigration judge for adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(iii). As a result, no automatic stay was triggered by the purported “filing” of Petitioners’ Exhibit J with Chief Immigration Judge David Neal.
C. At the hearing of March 21, 2007, counsel for Respondents understood that, although Petitioners requested several depositions, the Court limited Petitioners’ discovery to a single
5

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 8
deposition of Field Office Director Bruce Chadbourne, and encouraged the parties to expedite that deposition.2 After Respondents complied with the Court’s directives and informed Petitioners of Mr. Chadbourne’s availability the morning of Friday, March 23, late Friday evening, Petitioners forwarded to counsel a notice of deposition of Mr. Chadbourne, “to continue from day to day until completed” (in contravention of Rule 30(d)(2) regarding deposition duration), and Notices of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions for three additional days. Petitioners also served Respondents with a request for production of documents, and requested production of those documents by close-of-business March 29. See Petitioners’ Requests for Discovery (attached as Exhibits 2-6). The deposition notices and document requests are not limited to subject matters outlined by the Court but also include requests for documents regarding attorney access, humanitarian release policies for those detained in the action, and outstanding removal orders of Petitioners. See id.
To the extent that Petitioners seek discovery in habeas, the full scope of civil discovery is not permitted:
At the very least, it is clear that there was no intention to extend to habeas corpus, as a matter of right, the broad discovery provisions which, even in ordinary civil litigation, were ‘one of the most significant innovations' of the new rules. . . . Such a broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding. . . Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295, 297 (1969) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 500 (1947)). That being said, discovery is certainly available upon specific Court order and within the sound discretion of this Court. Id., at 298 (“a district court may, in an appropriate case, arrange for procedures which will allow development, for purposes of the hearing, of the facts
2 Respondents have requested an expedited copy of the transcript, which is not yet available. 6

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 8

relevant to disposition of a habeas corpus petition.”). In this case, the Court has allowed Petitioners to orally depose FOD Chadbourne and Respondents have arranged for FOD Chadbourne to be orally deposed on April 30, 2007.
To the extent that Petitioners rely on their characterization of their action as not an action for habeas, general civil discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is permitted only after a Rule 26(f) conference or by order or agreement of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). No Rule 26(f) conference has been scheduled, this Court has not ordered general discovery, and Respondents have agreed only to the deposition of Mr. Chadbourne. Accordingly, Petitioners’ discovery requests are unauthorized. Moreover, Respondents request that the Court reassert and clarify the full extent of discovery authorized in this action, to preclude further litigation on this issue.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, this Court should deny Petitioners’ third request for a temporary restraining order, and deny Petitioners’ motion to compel discovery.

March 28, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General
DAVID KLINE Principal Deputy Director
By: s/Elizabeth J. Stevens ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (VA 47443) Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN United States Attorney
MARK GRADY Assistant United States Attorney John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 (617) 748-3100

7

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 8

Civil Division United States Department of Justice 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 616-9752

FRANK CROWLEY Special Assistant U.S. Attorney ICE Office of Chief Counsel Boston, Massachusetts 617-565-2415 Frank.Crowley@dhs.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as nonregistered participants on March 28, 2007.
By: __/s Elizabeth J. Stevens_________ ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (VA # 47443) Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division United States Department of Justice 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 616-9752

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-2 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 9 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-3 Filed 03/28/07 Page 11 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-4 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-6 Filed 03/28/07 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-7 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-7 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-7 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24-7 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 28 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-10471-RGS
NOLBERTA AQUILAR, et al.
v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH
April 3, 2007
STEARNS, D.J.
The motion to quash is ALLOWED. The court clearly instructed plaintiffs at the
March 21, 2007, that they were permitted to take the deposition of Bruce Chadbourne and
no other witness. The additional deposition subpoenas should not have been served
without the prior approval of the court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 1 of 109
United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−10471−RGS

CLOSED

Sandoval v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Judge Richard G. Stearns Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Det
Petitioner

Date Filed: 03/08/2007 Date Terminated: 05/22/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval the Consul of Guatemala, as Next Friend of Three−Hundred and Fifty New Bedford Immigrant Workers agent of John/Jane Doe # 1−350

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III Dechert LLP John Hancock Tower 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 617−728−7143 Fax: 617−426−6567 Email: bernard.bonn@dechert.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan Kaplan, Friedman &Associates 295 Devonshire Street 6th Floor Boston, MA 02110 617−482−4500 Fax: 617−451−6826 Email: hkaplan@kfa−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 617−603−1670 Fax: 617−371−1222 Email: jwillshire−carrera@gbls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &Cohen, P.C. 101 Merrimac Street 9th Floor Boston, MA 02114 617−227−3030 Fax: 617−523−4001 Email: lyons@srbc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin Dechert LLP John Hancock Tower 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 617−728−7133 Fax: 617−426−6567 Email: michael.shin@dechert.com

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 2 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein 51 Abbottsford Road Brookline, MA 02446 617−515−7986 Email: jcreinstein@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Nolberta Aquilar

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Sebastian Aguilar

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 3 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Rotolo American Civil Liberties Union 211 Congress Street Boston, MA 02110 617−482−3170 Fax: 617−451−0009 Email: lrotolo@aclum.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Teresa Aguilar

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Diego Ajpop

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 4 of 109

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Mark Ajsiuiniac

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maria Angela Alfaro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 5 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Veronica Alfaro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Dora Maricela Alvarado

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 6 of 109

Petitioner Maria Alvarado
Petitioner Marisela Alvarado

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 7 of 109

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

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maura Alvarado

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 8 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Morena Alvarado−Mejia

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 9 of 109

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Aida Alvarez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Briselda Amaya

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 10 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Cristian Andres

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 11 of 109

Petitioner Bernaldo Arevalo
Petitioner Juana Argueta Morlaes
Petitioner

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 12 of 109

Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Sigfredo Arrieta

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Erica Karolina Avilez Matute

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 13 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Carlos Aliro Ayala

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Yoli Ayala de Reyes

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 14 of 109

Petitioner Ricardo Boaregez
Petitioner Paulo Braga

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 15 of 109

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

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Daniel Antonio Carranza

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Guadalupe Carranza

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 16 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Victor Castellanos Balan

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Andrea Castro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 17 of 109

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Hipolita Castro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Nasaria Castro Calcas

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 18 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ana Castro Castro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Lucia Castro Morales

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 19 of 109

Petitioner Josephina Chacaj
Petitioner Dilema Chach Ciprian

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 20 of 109

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

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner E Duar Chacon

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Julian Chamorro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 21 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Claudia Chanchavac

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ambrocio Chic Lox

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 22 of 109

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Domingo Chijal

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Nicolas Chimilan Vicente

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 23 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Manuel Chingo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Jose Choc

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 24 of 109

Petitioner Santa Chuj
Petitioner Martina Ciprian

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 25 of 109

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

Petitioner Soyias Ciprian

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Andres Ciprian Mateo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 26 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maria Ciprian Valasquez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Conseulo Olmos Colaj

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 27 of 109

Petitioner Rita Constanza
Petitioner Sandra Emilia Corvera
Petitioner

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 28 of 109

Enriqe Coxic

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Balvina Coxic Lopez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Deibin Cubas

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 29 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Teresa del Rosario Rivas

represented by Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Efrain Deleon

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 30 of 109

Petitioner Lilian Deleon Zelonda
Petitioner Berta Diaz

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 31 of 109

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

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Adela Antonio Duran

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 32 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Baltazar Estierrez G.

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Luis Fernando Itzap

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 33 of 109

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Susana Eneida Flores

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Jose Galileo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 34 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Camilo Garcia

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ellselo Garcia

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 35 of 109

Petitioner Victor Garcia
Petitioner Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 36 of 109

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

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Andres Garcia Ajqui

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Juana Garcia Delacruz

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 37 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Pedro Garcia Garcia

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Sabino Garcia Garcia

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 38 of 109

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ada Gedory Aleron

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Marta Gomez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 39 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maria Gomez Cruz

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Santos Gonzales

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 40 of 109

Petitioner Tomas Gonzalez Guerra
Petitioner Rolando Gonzalez Senca
Petitioner

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 41 of 109

Jose Guerra

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Wilfredo Guiles

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Andres Gutierrez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 42 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ana Victoria Hernandez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Filberto Hernandez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 43 of 109

Petitioner Jose Hernandez
Petitioner Ruth Hernandez

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 44 of 109

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

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Miriam Ixcuna

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Pedro Ixcuna

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 45 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Juana Candelina Jovel

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Sonia Jovel Alverado

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 46 of 109

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Angelly Jovel Jovel

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Jose Francisca L. Martin

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 47 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Gaspar L. Suar

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maya Milla Lindaf

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 48 of 109

Petitioner Brenda Lopez
Petitioner Fatima Lopez

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 49 of 109

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

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maximo Lopez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ignacio Lopez Suar

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 50 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Rigoberto Luis

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 51 of 109

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Esperanza Luis Grave

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Wilson Mancia

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 52 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Andres Maric

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Miguel Maric Yax

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 53 of 109

Petitioner Josue Martinez Chavez
Petitioner Jose Enrique Matute

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 54 of 109

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

Petitioner Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Pedro Matzatz I.

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 55 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Francisco Matzatz Sam

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Oscar Mauricio Abarca

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 56 of 109

Petitioner Vincente Mejia
Petitioner Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez
Petitioner

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 57 of 109

Aydi Mencia A.

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Hector Mendez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ricardo Mesa

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 58 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Antonio Morales

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Petronita Morales

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 59 of 109

Petitioner Analicia Nunez
Petitioner Zenona Olmos

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 60 of 109

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

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Manuel Ordonez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Nelei Ortiz

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 61 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Manuel Pojoj

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Jose Alejandro Palacios

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 62 of 109

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Hector Estuardo Perez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Oscar Perez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 63 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Manuel Perez Colaj

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Rolando Perez Perez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 64 of 109

Petitioner Juan Perez Segura
Petitioner Cecilia Petrona

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 65 of 109

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

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Juan Pinto

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Bertila Pinto Cordova

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 66 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Lilian Pinto Ramires

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Victor Pixcar Gonzalez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 67 of 109

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Elmer Portillo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Domingo Quino

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 68 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Tomas Quino

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Erika Ramirez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 69 of 109

Petitioner Nery Ramos
Petitioner Maritza M Ramos Cruz

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 70 of 109

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

Petitioner Maria Reyes

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maria Isabel Rivas

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 71 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Lillian Rivera Martinez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ana Dolores Rives

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 72 of 109

Petitioner Reina Rives
Petitioner Margarita Riz
Petitioner

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 73 of 109

Adan Riz de la Cruz

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Otoniel Ruiz

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Virginia Ruiz

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 74 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Pedro Ruiz Gomez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Virginia Ruiz Simar

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 75 of 109

Petitioner Valencio Salas R.
Petitioner Juan Salvador

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 76 of 109

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

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Juan Sam

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Juan Sam Castro

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 77 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Manuel Sam Lucas

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 78 of 109

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Edelmira Sandoval

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Blanca Serrano

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 79 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Santos Simaj

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Carlos Simaj Morente

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 80 of 109

Petitioner Bacilla Sinci Paujoj
Petitioner Hector Suarez

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 81 of 109

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

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Alberto Tebelanixchop

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Abel Tema Lopez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 82 of 109

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Luis Tiniquar Tamui

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maximo Tiquiram

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 83 of 109

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Valerio Tix Olmos

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Gonzalez Trejo Lopez

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 84 of 109

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Amilfo Tzarax Carillo

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Esteban Tzoc Tamup

represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 85 of 109

Petitioner Catarina Tzor Mendoza
Petitioner Sonia Varela

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernard J. Bonn , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 86 of 109

Petitioner Nora Ventura

represented by Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maria del Carmen Villeda

represented by Harvey Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Reinstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John E. Willshire (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M. Lyons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S. Shin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Respondent
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Barbara Healy Smith United States Attorney's Office John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 617−748−3100

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 87 of 109

Fax: 617−748−3969 Email: barbara.h.smith@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justice 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9752 Fax: 202−633−0397 Email: elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank Crowley Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Dept. of Homeland Secur PO Box 8728 JFK Station Boston, MA 02114 617−565−2415 Email: Frank.Crowley@dhs.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark J. Grady United States Attorney's Office John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 617−748−3136 Fax: 617−748−3971 Email: mark.grady@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Julie Myers Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Barbara Healy Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank Crowley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark J. Grady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Bruce Chadbourne Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, Boston Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Barbara Healy Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 88 of 109

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank Crowley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark J. Grady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Michael Chertoff Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

represented by Barbara Healy Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank Crowley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark J. Grady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Alberto Gonzales Attorney General of the United States

represented by Barbara Healy Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank Crowley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark J. Grady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Department of Social Services

Date Filed 03/08/2007

# Docket Text
1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 89 of 109

03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007
03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007
03/09/2007 03/09/2007

Myers, Bruce Chadbourne , filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Bowler (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and for Hearing by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval.(Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and for Hearing filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Proposed Document submitted by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. Document received: Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause. (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Summons Issued as to Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Patch, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns : Emergency Hearing held on 3/8/2007 at 5:45 P.M. on Petitioners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Attys. Kaplan, Kelly, Shin and Willshire present for the petitioners. AUSA Healy−Smith, AUSA Grady, and AUSA Frank Crowley present for the respondents. After hearing, Atty. Crowley advises the Court that all the detainees that were scheduled to be transferred have been transferred. Atty. Crowley affirms in open Court that no one else will be transferred until such time as the Court has had further argument on jurisdictional issues, which is scheduled for Friday, March 9, 2007 at 12:00 Noon. Adjourn 6:05 P.M. (Court Reporter James Gibbons.) (Johnson, Mary) Modified on 3/8/2007 (Johnson, Mary). Modified on 3/12/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 03/08/2007)
4 Opposition re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (CORRECTED) filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Bruce E. Chadbourne)(Healy Smith, Barbara) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
Filing fee: $ 350.00, receipt number 78763 for 1 Complaint, (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns : Motion Hearing held on 3/9/2007 re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, and MOTION for Hearing filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, et al. Attorneys Kaplan, Kelly, Willshire, Shin, and Bonn appeared for the petitioners. Attorneys Stevens and Healy−Smith appeared for the government. After hearing oral argument and witness testimony (S. Getman for petitioners), the court issued an order on the motion for a temporary injunction which will be reduced to a separate written opinion later this day. (Court Reporter James Gibbons.) (Hamilton, Maria Raia) Modified on 3/12/2007 (Hamilton, Maria Raia). (Entered: 03/09/2007)
5 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER entered. re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval "ALLOWED IN PART, DENIED IN PART."(Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
6 AFFIDAVIT of Field Officer Director Bruce E. Chadbourne by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to Deval Patrick)(Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 03/09/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 90 of 109

03/09/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007
03/14/2007 03/14/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007

Motions terminated: 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval,. (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: court notes of 3/9/2007 corrected because: correct to add name of witness (Hamilton, Maria Raia) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: the name "removed" has been changed to "transferred" corrected because: incorrectly docketed. It has been corrected to reflect the correct name − transferred,instead of removed. M. Johnson, Deputy Clerk. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
7 DECLARATION of Field Office Director Bruce E. Chadbourne dated March 9, 2007 (Complete Copy) by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Grady, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark J. Grady on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne (Grady, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
9 AMENDED Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunction Reliefagainst Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval.(Bonn, Bernard) Modified on 4/9/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 03/13/2007)
10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing Concerning Jurisdiction filed by Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. (Bonn, Bernard) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
11 STATUS REPORT by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Gary E. Mead, Assistant Director# 2 Exhibit B− Declaration of Robert E. Jolicoeur, Field Office Director El Paso, Texas# 3 Exhibit C − Declaration of Marc J. Moore, Field Office Director San Antonio, Texas# 4 Exhibit D − Declaration of Bruce Foucart, Special Agent in Charge, Boston, Massachusetts# 5 Exhibit E − Second Supplemental Declaration of Bruce Chadbourne, Field Office Director, Boston, Massachusetts)(Grady, Mark) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
12 STATUS REPORT/LETTER to Judge Stearns from Virginia A. Peel, Esq. on behalf of Department of Social Services (DSS), FILED.(Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by John Reinstein on behalf of Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval (Reinstein, John) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
14 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on March 9, 2007 before Judge Stearns. Court Reporter: James P. Gibbons. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at 617/428−0402 or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
15 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to March 16, 2007 at 12:00 noon to File Response/Reply to the Petitioner/Plaintiff's Jurisdictional Memorandum by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne.(Grady, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 15 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to March 16, 2007 at 12:00 noon to File Response/Reply to the Petitioner/Plaintiff's Jurisdictional Memorandum Replies due by 3/16/2007. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 03/15/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 91 of 109

03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007
03/16/2007

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing : "A Status Conference and Hearing on pending motions is scheduled for Wednesday, 3/21/2007 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 21 before Judge Richard G. Stearns. " M. Johnson, Deputy Clerk. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
16 MOTION to Dismiss by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne.(Crowley, Frank) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
17 MEMORANDUM in Support re 16 MOTION to Dismiss and Response Concerning Jurisdictional Issues filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Crowley, Frank) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/16/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 03/16/2007)
18 Amended MEMORANDUM in Support re 16 MOTION to Dismiss and Respondents' Memorandum of Law Concerning Jurisdictional Issues filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Crowley, Frank) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: #17 corrected because: was improperly filed and taken off the public docket per request of filing attorney (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
19 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Alberto Gonzales, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Department of Social Services, Bruce Chadbourne.(Bonn, Bernard) Modified on 4/9/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 03/16/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns : Emergency Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2007 (at 4:00 P.M.) re 19 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Bruce Chadbourne,, Santos Gonzales,, Maria Alvarado,, Victor Garcia,, Aida Alvarez,, Department of Social Services,, Alberto Gonzales,, Michael Chertoff,, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval,, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security,, Julie Myers,, Nolberta Aquilar,, Sebastian Aguilar,, Teresa Aguilar,, Diego Ajpop,, Mark Ajsiuiniac,, Maria Angela Alfaro,, Veronica Alfaro,, Dora Maricela Alvarado,, Marisela Alvarado,, Maura Alvarado,, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares,, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora,, Morena Alvarado−Mejia,, Briselda Amaya,, Cristian Andres,, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro,, Bernaldo Arevalo,, Juana Argueta

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 92 of 109

03/16/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007
03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/28/2007

Morlaes,, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez,, Sigfredo Arrieta,, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute,, Carlos Aliro Ayala,, Yoli Ayala de Reyes,, Ricardo Boaregez,, Paulo Braga,, Daniel Antonio Carranza,, Guadalupe Carranza,, Victor Castellanos Balan,, Andrea Castro,, Hipolita Castro,, Nasaria Castro Calcas,, Ana Castro Castro,, Lucia Castro Morales,, Josephina Chacaj,, Dilema Chach Ciprian,, E Duar Chacon,, Julian Chamorro,, Claudia Chanchavac,, Ambrocio Chic Lox,, Domingo Chijal,, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente,, Manuel Chingo,, Jose Choc,, Santa Chuj,, Martina Ciprian,, Soyias Ciprian,, Andres Ciprian Mateo,, Maria Ciprian Valasquez,, Conseulo Olmos Colaj,, Rita Constanza,, Sandra Emilia Corvera,, Enriqe Coxic,, Balvina Coxic Lopez,, Deibin Cubas,, Teresa del Rosario Rivas,, Efrain Deleon,, Lilian Deleon Zelonda,, Berta Diaz,, Adela Antonio Duran,, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo,, Baltazar Estierrez G.,, Luis Fernando Itzap,, Susana Eneida Flores,, Jose Galileo,, Camilo Garcia,, Ellselo Garcia,, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar,, Andres Garcia Ajqui,, Juana Garcia Delacruz,, Pedro Garcia Garcia,, Sabino Garcia Garcia,, Ada Gedory Aleron,, Marta Gomez,, Maria Gomez Cruz,, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra,. Attys. Bonn, Lyons, Kaplan, Shin, Kelly, Wilshire present for the petitioners. Attys. Grady and Crowley present for the respondents. After hearing, the Emergency Motion for TRO is DENIED. Adjourn 5:00 P.M. (Court Reporter Jame Gibbons.) (Johnson, Mary) Modified on 3/20/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 03/20/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered denying 19 insofar as it pertains to the request for a TRO. (Johnson, Mary) Modified on 3/21/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 03/20/2007)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: docket entry of 3−16−07 corrected because: it was corrected to reflect that the motion was denied only insofar as it pertains to the request for the TRO. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns : Hearing/Status Conference held on 3/21/2007. Attys. Bonn, Kaplan, Shin, Kelly and Wilshire present for the plaintiffs/petitioners. Attys. Stevens, Grady and Crowley present for the defendants/respondents. Plaintiffs' request to conduct limited discovery on the jurisdictional issues is granted by the Court, and Court suggests to counsel that the deposition of Bruce Chadbourne be taken on an expedited basis. The response to the pending motion to dismiss shall be filed by plaintiffs on April 4, 2007. The defendants will be allowed to file a reply within 7 days. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for APRIL 19, 2007 at 11:30 A.M. Adjourn 11:40 A.M. (Court Reporter James Gibbons.) (Johnson, Mary) Modified on 3/21/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 03/21/2007)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J. Stevens on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne (Stevens, Elizabeth) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 03/23/2007)
21 NOTICE by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne Respondents' Notice of Intent to Execute Removal Orders (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
22 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian,

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 93 of 109

03/28/2007 03/28/2007

Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A − J)(Bonn, Bernard) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
23 MOTION to Amend 9 Amended Complaint by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. (Attachments: # 1)(Shin, Michael) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
24 Opposition re 22 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 94 of 109

03/29/2007
04/02/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007

2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
25 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Compel Discovery by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval. (Attachments: # 1 Reply in Support of Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Compel Discovery# 2 Exhibit A)(Shin, Michael) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
26 MOTION to Quash by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 30(B)(6) Notice to DSS# 2 Exhibit 2 − Partial Transcript)(Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
27 Opposition re 23 MOTION to Amend 9 Amended Complaint filed by all defendants. (Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
28 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER entered on Respondents' Motion to Quash... "the motion is ALLOWED."(Johnson, Mary) Modified on 4/3/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 04/03/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 26 Motion to Quash. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 22 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for Friday, 4/6/2007 12:00 PM in Courtroom 21 before Judge Richard G. Stearns. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 23 Motion to Amend (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 95 of 109

04/03/2007 04/04/2007
04/04/2007

Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 25 Motion for Leave to File; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
29 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File in Excess of 20 Pages by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Attachments: # 1)(Bonn, Bernard) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
30 MOTION for Discovery by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente,

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 96 of 109

04/06/2007 04/06/2007

Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bonn, Bernard) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
31 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for TRO, reserving ruling on 30 Motion for Discovery "...Respondents will reply to petitioners' request for additional discovery by the close of business, Thursday, April 12,2007." (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns : Motion Hearing held on 4/6/2007 re 22 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Jose Hernandez,, Santos Gonzales,, Maria Alvarado,, Oscar Perez,, Victor Garcia,, Aida Alvarez,, Hector Mendez,, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval,, Nolberta Aquilar,, Sebastian Aguilar,, Teresa Aguilar,, Diego Ajpop,, Mark Ajsiuiniac,, Maria Angela Alfaro,, Veronica Alfaro,, Dora Maricela Alvarado,, Marisela Alvarado,, Maura Alvarado,, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares,, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora,, Morena Alvarado−Mejia,, Briselda Amaya,, Cristian Andres,, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro,, Bernaldo Arevalo,, Juana Argueta Morlaes,, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez,, Sigfredo Arrieta,, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute,, Carlos Aliro Ayala,, Yoli Ayala de Reyes,, Ricardo Boaregez,, Paulo Braga,, Daniel Antonio Carranza,, Guadalupe Carranza,, Victor Castellanos Balan,, Andrea Castro,, Hipolita Castro,, Nasaria Castro Calcas,, Ana Castro Castro,, Lucia Castro Morales,, Josephina Chacaj,, Dilema Chach Ciprian,, E Duar Chacon,, Julian Chamorro,, Claudia Chanchavac,, Ambrocio Chic Lox,, Domingo Chijal,, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente,, Manuel Chingo,, Jose Choc,, Santa Chuj,, Martina Ciprian,, Soyias Ciprian,, Andres Ciprian Mateo,, Maria Ciprian Valasquez,, Conseulo Olmos Colaj,, Rita Constanza,, Sandra Emilia Corvera,, Enriqe Coxic,, Balvina Coxic Lopez,, Deibin Cubas,, Efrain Deleon,, Lilian Deleon Zelonda,, Berta Diaz,, Adela Antonio Duran,, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo,, Baltazar Estierrez G.,, Luis Fernando Itzap,, Susana Eneida Flores,, Jose Galileo,, Camilo Garcia,, Ellselo Garcia,, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar,, Andres Garcia Ajqui,, Pedro Garcia Garcia,, Sabino Garcia Garcia,, Ada Gedory Aleron,, Marta Gomez,, Maria Gomez Cruz,, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra,, Rolando Gonzalez Senca,, Jose Guerra,, Wilfredo Guiles,, Andres Gutierrez,, Ana Victoria Hernandez,, Filberto

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 97 of 109

04/09/2007

Hernandez,, Ruth Hernandez,, Miriam Ixcuna,, Pedro Ixcuna,, Juana Candelina Jovel,, Sonia Jovel Alverado,, Angelly Jovel Jovel,, Jose Francisca L. Martin,, Gaspar L. Suar,, Maya Milla Lindaf,, Brenda Lopez,, Fatima Lopez,, Maximo Lopez,, Ignacio Lopez Suar,, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo,, Rigoberto Luis,, Esperanza Luis Grave,, Wilson Mancia,, Andres Maric,, Miguel Maric Yax,, Josue Martinez Chavez,, Jose Enrique Matute,, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo,, Pedro Matzatz I.,, Francisco Matzatz Sam,, Oscar Mauricio Abarca,, Vincente Mejia,, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez,, Aydi Mencia A.,, Ricardo Mesa,, Antonio Morales,, Petronita Morales,, Analicia Nunez,, Zenona Olmos,, Manuel Ordonez,, Nelei Ortiz,, Manuel Pojoj,, Jose Alejandro Palacios,, Hector Estuardo Perez,, Manuel Perez Colaj,, Rolando Perez Perez,, Juan Perez Segura,, Cecilia Petrona,, Juan Pinto,, Bertila Pinto Cordova,, Lilian Pinto Ramires,, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez,, Elmer Portillo,. (Court Reporter Richard Romanow.) Attorneys Bonn, Kaplan, Shin, Wilshire and Kelley appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs; AUSAs Grady, Crowley and Stevens appeared on behalf of Homeland Security. After Hearing the matter was taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.(Zierk, Marsha) Modified on 4/10/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 04/06/2007)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew M. Lyons on behalf of Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda (Lyons, Matthew) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 98 of 109

04/09/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007 04/17/2007

33 NOTICE by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne Respondents' Second Notice of Intent to Execute Removal Orders (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
34 REPLY to Response to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − March 9, 2007, Transcript of Proceedings# 2 Exhibit 2 − Chadbourne Deposition, p. 90)(Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
35 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 MOTION for Discovery filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − March 21, 2007, Transcript of Proceedings# 2 Exhibit 2 − Chadbourne Deposition)(Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING: "the hearing that is scheduled for Thursday, April 19, 2007 is being moved from 11:30 A.M., to 12:30 P.M." M. Johnson, Deputy Clerk. (Johnson, Mary) Modified on 4/12/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 04/12/2007)
36 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Renewing April 6, 2007 Order by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 99 of 109

04/17/2007
04/18/2007 04/18/2007 04/18/2007

Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shin, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
37 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Further Discovery by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Reply in Support of Motion for Further Discovery)(Lyons, Matthew) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
38 NOTICE by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security That No Alien Subject to the Fourth Request for a Temporary Restraining Order Will Be Removed Prior to the Hearing April 19, 2007 (Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
39 RESPONSE to Motion re 36 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Renewing April 6, 2007 Order filed by Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Alfredo Campos# 2 Exhibit 2 − Transcript 3−21−07)(Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
40 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 39 Response to Motion, by Hector Garcia. (Grady, Mark) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 100 of 109

04/18/2007 04/19/2007
04/19/2007

Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 29 Motion for Leave to File; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Stearns : Motion Hearing held on 4/19/2007 re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bruce Chadbourne, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers. Attys. Bonn, Sniffin, Kelly, Shin, Wilshire, Rotolo, Kaplan, and Lyons present for the plaintiffs/petitioners. Attys. Stevens, Grady and Crowley present for the defendants/respondents. After hearing, the motion to dismiss is taken 'under advisement'. Procedural Order to follow. Adjourn 2:25 P.M. (Court Reporter James Gibbons.) (Johnson, Mary) Modified on 4/19/2007 (Johnson, Mary). (Entered: 04/19/2007)
41 ADDENDUM re 36 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Renewing April 6, 2007 Order Clarifying Relief Requested filed by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda, Julie Myers. (Shin, Michael) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 101 of 109

04/19/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/23/2007

42 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER Following a Hearing on Respondents' re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bruce Chadbourne,, Alberto Gonzales,, Michael Chertoff,, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security,, Julie Myers, "...The court will stay the deportation of any non−MA detainee contesting his or her involuntary removal in the immigration courts until a decision is rendered on Respondents' motion to dismiss. The stay will in any event, expire within twelve (12) days of today's date, unless further extended by the court. Respondents' motion to dismiss is taken under advisement."(Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
43 Respondent's Opposition to Petitioners' clarification of request for temporary relief re: 36 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Renewing April 6, 2007 Order Respondents' Opposition to Petitioners' Clarification of Request for Temporary Relief filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Stevens, Elizabeth) Modified on 4/23/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). Modified on 4/23/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 04/20/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 37 Motion for Leave to File; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION for Discovery filed by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 102 of 109

04/24/2007 04/24/2007 04/25/2007
04/27/2007

Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Shin, Michael) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
45 NOTICE by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne Respondents' Third Notice of Intent to Execute Removal Orders (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
46 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER on Motion for Clarification, entered. "There is nothing to clarify..."(Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
47 SUR−REPLY to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Bonn, Bernard) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
48 MEMORANDUM in Support re 16 MOTION to Dismiss in Response to Petitioners' Sur−Reply filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 103 of 109

04/27/2007 04/30/2007 05/01/2007
05/01/2007

Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
49 NOTICE by Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne OF REMOVAL (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Rotolo on behalf of Sebastian Aguilar (Rotolo, Laura) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2007 (Flaherty, Elaine). (Entered: 04/30/2007)
51 MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Supplemental Authority)(Shin, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 51 Motion for Leave to File; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 05/01/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 104 of 109

05/01/2007 05/01/2007

52 NOTICE by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Shin, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
53 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Extending April 20, 2007 Order Staying Deportion by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 105 of 109

05/01/2007
05/01/2007
05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007

Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda.(Shin, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
54 Opposition re 53 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Extending April 20, 2007 Order Staying Deportion filed by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (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# 12 Exhibit 12)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
55 EXHIBIT re 54 Opposition to Motion,, Exhibits 13 to 24 by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, Bruce Chadbourne. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 14# 2 Exhibit 15# 3 Exhibit 16# 4 Exhibit 17# 5 Exhibit 18# 6 Exhibit 19# 7 Exhibit 20# 8 Exhibit 21# 9 Exhibit 22# 10 Exhibit 23# 11 Exhibit 24)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
56 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Petitioners' Notice of Supplemental Authority by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Petitioners' Notice of Supplemental Authority)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 53 Motion for TRO pending further Order of the court. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 36 Motion for TRO. See court's Order dated April 19, 2007. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : Electronic ORDER entered granting 56 Motion for Leave to File; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Zierk, Marsha) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
57 Response by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 106 of 109

05/07/2007
05/17/2007 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/24/2007

Myers, Bruce Chadbourne to 52 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 56 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Petitioners' Notice of Supplemental Authority Leave to file granted 5/4/07. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
58 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER entered granting 16 Motion to Dismiss "For the foregoing reasons, respondents' motion to dismiss is ALLOWED as the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The stay of removals entered on 5/2/07, will be EXTENDED for twenty−one (21) days to permit petitioners to seek a further enlargement of the stay from the Court of Appeals." (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
Judge Richard G. Stearns : ElectronicORDER entered finding as moot 30 Motion for Discovery (Flaherty, Elaine) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
59 Judge Richard G. Stearns : ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND FINAL JUDGMENT entered. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
Civil Case Terminated. (Johnson, Mary) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
60 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 59 Order by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela Filing

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 107 of 109

06/04/2007 06/07/2007
08/14/2007

fee $ 455, receipt number 1534782 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/clerks/transcript.htm MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals.Appeal Record due by 6/13/2007. (Bonn, Bernard) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
61 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 60 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 usdc docket part 1# 2 usdc docket 14 thru 27)(Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
62 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Nolberta Aquilar, Sebastian Aguilar, Teresa Aguilar, Diego Ajpop, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Maria Angela Alfaro, Veronica Alfaro, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Maria Alvarado, Marisela Alvarado, Maura Alvarado, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Aida Alvarez, Briselda Amaya, Cristian Andres, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Bernaldo Arevalo, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Sigfredo Arrieta, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Ricardo Boaregez, Paulo Braga, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Guadalupe Carranza, Victor Castellanos Balan, Andrea Castro, Hipolita Castro, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Ana Castro Castro, Lucia Castro Morales, Josephina Chacaj, Dilema Chach Ciprian, E Duar Chacon, Julian Chamorro, Claudia Chanchavac, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Domingo Chijal, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Manuel Chingo, Jose Choc, Santa Chuj, Martina Ciprian, Soyias Ciprian, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Rita Constanza, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Enriqe Coxic, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Deibin Cubas, Teresa del Rosario Rivas, Efrain Deleon, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Berta Diaz, Adela Antonio Duran, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Baltazar Estierrez G., Luis Fernando Itzap, Susana Eneida Flores, Jose Galileo, Camilo Garcia, Ellselo Garcia, Victor Garcia, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Pedro Garcia Garcia, Sabino Garcia Garcia, Ada Gedory Aleron, Marta Gomez, Maria Gomez Cruz, Santos Gonzales, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Jose Guerra, Wilfredo Guiles, Andres Gutierrez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Filberto Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Ruth Hernandez, Miriam Ixcuna, Pedro Ixcuna, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Gaspar L. Suar, Maya Milla Lindaf, Brenda Lopez, Fatima Lopez, Maximo Lopez, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Rigoberto Luis, Esperanza Luis Grave, Wilson Mancia, Andres Maric, Miguel Maric Yax, Josue Martinez Chavez, Jose Enrique Matute, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, Pedro Matzatz I., Francisco Matzatz Sam, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Vincente Mejia, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Aydi Mencia A., Hector Mendez, Ricardo Mesa, Antonio Morales, Petronita Morales, Analicia Nunez, Zenona Olmos, Manuel Ordonez, Nelei Ortiz, Manuel Pojoj, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Hector Estuardo Perez, Oscar Perez, Manuel Perez Colaj, Rolando Perez Perez, Juan Perez Segura, Cecilia Petrona, Juan Pinto, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Elmer Portillo, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Domingo Quino, Tomas Quino, Erika Ramirez, Nery Ramos, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Maria Reyes, Maria Isabel Rivas, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Ana Dolores Rives, Reina Rives, Margarita Riz, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Otoniel Ruiz, Virginia Ruiz, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Virginia Ruiz Simar, Valencio Salas R., Juan Salvador, Juan Sam, Juan Sam Castro, Manuel Sam Lucas, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Blanca Serrano, Santos Simaj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj, Hector Suarez, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Abel Tema Lopez, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maximo Tiquiram, Valerio Tix Olmos, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sonia Varela, Nora Ventura, Maria del Carmen Villeda for proceedings held on 3−16−07, 3−21−07, 4−19−07 before Judge Stearns.. (Lyons, Matthew) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
63 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for T. R. O. held on March 16, 2007 before Judge Stearns. Court Reporter: James Gibbons. The original transcripts are maintained by the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at (617) 428−0402 or the Clerk's Office. (Dello Russo, Frank) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 108 of 109

08/14/2007 08/14/2007
08/14/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007

64 TRANSCRIPT of Motion hearing held on March 21, 2007 before Judge Stearns. Court Reporter: James Gibbons. The original transcripts are maintained by the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at (617) 428−0402 or the Clerk's Office. (Dello Russo, Frank) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
65 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing re: motion to dismiss held on April 19, 2007 before Judge Stearns. Court Reporter: James Gibbons. The original transcripts are maintained by the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter at (617) 428−0402 or the Clerk's Office. (Dello Russo, Frank) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
66 Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 60 Notice of Appeal Documents included: Transcripts 63−65 (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
67 OPINION of USCA issued on 11/27/07, FILED. (Attachments: # 1 usca opinion part 2# 2 usca opinion part 3)(Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
68 USCA Judgment as to 60 Notice of Appeal,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Juan Pinto, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Adela Antonio Duran, Miguel Maric Yax, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Tomas Quino, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Maria Isabel Rivas, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maria Reyes, Manuel Sam Lucas, Analicia Nunez, Jose Choc, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Elmer Portillo, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Hector Mendez, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Diego Ajpop, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Ana Dolores Rives, Paulo Braga, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Rita Constanza, Gaspar L. Suar, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Manuel Perez Colaj, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Petronita Morales, Lucia Castro Morales, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Soyias Ciprian, Marisela Alvarado, Ellselo Garcia, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Sonia Varela, Teresa Aguilar, Veronica Alfaro, Josephina Chacaj, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Briselda Amaya, Nery Ramos, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Hipolita Castro, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Marta Gomez, Ricardo Boaregez, Jose Hernandez, Claudia Chanchavac, Jose Guerra, Julian Chamorro, Hector Estuardo Perez, Manuel Pojoj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Baltazar Estierrez G., Virginia Ruiz Simar, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Maya Milla Lindaf, Jose Galileo, Miriam Ixcuna, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Luis Fernando Itzap, Manuel Chingo, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Dilema Chach Ciprian, Reina Rives, Hector Suarez, Maximo Tiquiram, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Camilo Garcia, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Martina Ciprian, Cecilia Petrona, Nolberta Aquilar, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Rolando Perez Perez, Margarita Riz, Blanca Serrano, Josue Martinez Chavez, Virginia Ruiz, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Enriqe Coxic, Filberto Hernandez, Ada Gedory Aleron, Maria Angela Alfaro, Santa Chuj, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sigfredo Arrieta, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Susana Eneida Flores, Maximo Lopez, Ruth Hernandez, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sebastian Aguilar, Brenda Lopez, Juan Salvador, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Andrea Castro, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Ricardo Mesa, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Valencio Salas R., Sabino Garcia Garcia, Aida Alvarez, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Juan Perez Segura, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Maura Alvarado, Andres Maric, Nelei Ortiz, Maria Alvarado, Maria Gomez Cruz, Vincente Mejia, Abel Tema Lopez, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Andres Gutierrez, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Antonio Morales, Guadalupe Carranza, Pedro Matzatz I., Pedro Garcia Garcia, Victor Castellanos Balan, Santos Gonzales, Esperanza Luis Grave, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Zenona Olmos, Oscar Perez, Wilfredo Guiles, Juan Sam Castro, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Jose Enrique Matute, Victor Garcia, Deibin Cubas, Berta Diaz, Fatima Lopez, Wilson Mancia, Rigoberto Luis, Francisco Matzatz Sam, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Juan Sam, Pedro Ixcuna, Manuel Ordonez, Domingo Quino, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, E Duar Chacon, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Santos Simaj, Efrain Deleon, Aydi Mencia A., Ana Castro Castro, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Erika Ramirez, Valerio Tix Olmos, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Cristian Andres, Otoniel Ruiz, Domingo Chijal, Bernaldo Arevalo, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj.... Upon consideration whereof, it is now here ordered adjudged and decreed as follows: The District Court's Judgment of Dismissal is AFFIRMED. All parties shall bear their own costs, FILED. (Gawlik, Cathy) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-10471 As of: 02/17/2013 08:07 PM EST 109 of 109

02/12/2008 02/12/2008

69 MANDATE of USCA as to 60 Notice of Appeal, filed by Juan Pinto, Jose Francisca L. Martin, Adela Antonio Duran, Miguel Maric Yax, Alberto Tebelanixchop, Maria Amparo Arias Ramirez, Tomas Quino, Victor Manuel Alvarado Valladares, Maria Isabel Rivas, Nasaria Castro Calcas, Luis Tiniquar Tamui, Maria Reyes, Manuel Sam Lucas, Analicia Nunez, Jose Choc, Daniel Antonio Carranza, Elmer Portillo, Angelly Jovel Jovel, Hector Mendez, Andres Ciprian Mateo, Diego Ajpop, Sonia Jovel Alverado, Ana Dolores Rives, Paulo Braga, Mark Ajsiuiniac, Rita Constanza, Gaspar L. Suar, Maria Leticia Garcia Aguilar, Manuel Perez Colaj, Juana Garcia Delacruz, Petronita Morales, Lucia Castro Morales, Yoli Ayala de Reyes, Soyias Ciprian, Marisela Alvarado, Ellselo Garcia, Ambrocio Chic Lox, Sonia Varela, Teresa Aguilar, Veronica Alfaro, Josephina Chacaj, Balvina Coxic Lopez, Briselda Amaya, Nery Ramos, Ignacio Lopez Suar, Hipolita Castro, Morena Alvarado−Mejia, Marta Gomez, Ricardo Boaregez, Jose Hernandez, Claudia Chanchavac, Jose Guerra, Julian Chamorro, Hector Estuardo Perez, Manuel Pojoj, Carlos Simaj Morente, Baltazar Estierrez G., Virginia Ruiz Simar, Gonzalez Trejo Lopez, Juana Argueta Morlaes, Maria Ciprian Valasquez, Edelmira Sandoval, Maya Milla Lindaf, Jose Galileo, Miriam Ixcuna, Erica Karolina Avilez Matute, Luis Fernando Itzap, Manuel Chingo, Oscar Mauricio Abarca, Dilema Chach Ciprian, Reina Rives, Hector Suarez, Maximo Tiquiram, Lillian Rivera Martinez, Victor Pixcar Gonzalez, Camilo Garcia, Amilfo Tzarax Carillo, Martina Ciprian, Cecilia Petrona, Nolberta Aquilar, Wilber Neptali Angel Alfaro, Rolando Perez Perez, Margarita Riz, Blanca Serrano, Josue Martinez Chavez, Virginia Ruiz, Lilian Pinto Ramires, Enriqe Coxic, Filberto Hernandez, Ada Gedory Aleron, Maria Angela Alfaro, Santa Chuj, Juana Candelina Jovel, Sigfredo Arrieta, Carlos Aliro Ayala, Susana Eneida Flores, Maximo Lopez, Ruth Hernandez, Feliz Miguel Lopez Trejo, Catarina Tzor Mendoza, Sebastian Aguilar, Brenda Lopez, Juan Salvador, Conseulo Olmos Colaj, Andres Garcia Ajqui, Dora Maricela Alvarado, Andrea Castro, Fatima del Carmen Duran Cornejo, Ricardo Mesa, Jose Alejandro Palacios, Valencio Salas R., Sabino Garcia Garcia, Aida Alvarez, Pedro Ruiz Gomez, Adan Riz de la Cruz, Bertila Pinto Cordova, Juan Perez Segura, Carlos Enrique Avila Sandoval, Maura Alvarado, Andres Maric, Nelei Ortiz, Maria Alvarado, Maria Gomez Cruz, Vincente Mejia, Abel Tema Lopez, Maritza M Ramos Cruz, Andres Gutierrez, Ivette Los Angeles Sanabria Henriquez, Ana Victoria Hernandez, Antonio Morales, Guadalupe Carranza, Pedro Matzatz I., Pedro Garcia Garcia, Victor Castellanos Balan, Santos Gonzales, Esperanza Luis Grave, Lilian Deleon Zelonda, Zenona Olmos, Oscar Perez, Wilfredo Guiles, Juan Sam Castro, Miriam Marlene Melara de Perez, Jose Enrique Matute, Victor Garcia, Deibin Cubas, Berta Diaz, Fatima Lopez, Wilson Mancia, Rigoberto Luis, Francisco Matzatz Sam, Tomas Gonzalez Guerra, Yesenia Lisbeth Alvarado Valladora, Juan Sam, Pedro Ixcuna, Manuel Ordonez, Domingo Quino, Jhann Carlos Matute Vallecillo, E Duar Chacon, Esteban Tzoc Tamup, Santos Simaj, Efrain Deleon, Aydi Mencia A., Ana Castro Castro, Nicolas Chimilan Vicente, Erika Ramirez, Valerio Tix Olmos, Sandra Emilia Corvera, Cristian Andres, Otoniel Ruiz, Domingo Chijal, Bernaldo Arevalo, Rolando Gonzalez Senca, Bacilla Sinci Paujoj. Mandate issued in the USCA2/8/2008 (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
Appeal Record Returned: 60 Notice of Appeal (Ramos, Jeanette) (Entered: 02/12/2008)