UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Basam ABOU ASALI, Jozfin ALSHAAR, Hassan ABOU ASALI, Jurjeet ABOU ASALI, Sara ABOU ASALI and M.A.A., a minor, by his parents, Hassan and Jurjeet Abou Asali,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), John KELLY, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP, Kevin DONOHUE, Port Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of CBP, Donald J. TRUMP, President of United States, And JOHN DOES 1-5,
Respondents/Defendants.

Case No. ____________

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION
Basam, Hassan and Ghassan are brothers born in Syria. Ghassan came to the United States many years ago to join family living near Allentown. It was always his dream to unite his family in the U.S., so in 2003, after Ghassan became a U.S. citizen, he started the long process of petitioning to bring his brothers and their families to live with him in Allentown. It took him 13 years, but finally, on December 19, 2016, after numerous background checks and other reviews,

his brothers Basam and Hassan and their wives, Jozfin and Jurjeet, and Hassan’s two children, Sara and M.A.A., were issued visas to come to the U.S. to become Permanent Residents. They left Syria on January 27, 2017.
They touched down at Philadelphia International Airport the morning of Saturday, January 28, expecting a joyous reunion with Ghassan, who would take them to Allentown to begin their new lives. But that never happened. Instead, officials of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection took them from their plane, detained them, threatened to imprison them and destroy their visas, and bullied them into agreeing to leave immediately on the plane that brought them, all without allowing them even to speak with Ghassan or tell him what was happening.
This is an action to bring Basam, Hassan and their families back to Philadelphia and reinstate their immigration visas so that they may be reunited with the rest of their family as they intended.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 1361, 2241, 2243; 42 U.S.C.
§1983 and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This court has further remedial authority pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. 2. Venue properly lies within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 3. No complaint or petition for a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus has previously been filed in any court to review Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ cases.

PARTIES 4. Basam Abou Asali is an adult male citizen of Syria, and the brother of Ghassan Abou
Asali, a U.S. citizen living near Allentown, Pennsylvania. 5. Jozfin Alshaaf is an adult female citizen of Syria, and the wife of Basam Abou Asali. 6. Hassan Abou Asali is an adult male citizen of Syria, and the brother of Ghassan Abou
Asali, a U.S. citizen living near Allentown, Pennsylvania. 7. Jurjeet Abou Asali is an adult female citizen of Syria, and the wife of Hassan Abou
Asali. 8. Sara Abou Asali is an adult female citizen of Syria, and the daughter of Hassan and
Jurjeet Abou Asali. 9. M.A.A. is a minor male citizen of Syria, and the son of Hassan and Jurjeet Abou Asali. 10. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department of the
United States federal government with the primary mission of securing the United States. 11. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an agency within DHS with the primary
mission of detecting and preventing the unlawful entry of persons and goods into the United States. 12. Respondent/Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. He is sued in his official capacity. 13. Respondent/Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP. Acting Commissioner McAleenan has immediate control over the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and had physical custody of them in the U.S. He is sued in his official capacity. 14. Respondent/Defendant Kevin Donohue is the Port Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of CBP, which has immediate control over the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and had physical custody of them in the U.S. He is sued in his official capacity.

15. Respondent/Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity.
16. Respondents/Defendants John Does 1-5 are unknown agents of the CBP or of state or local governments who worked in concert with the named Respondents/Defendants to deny Plaintiffs entry to the U.S. on January 28, 2017. STATEMENT OF FACTS
President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order 17. On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of
the United States. 18. One week later, on January 27, President Trump signed an executive order entitled,
“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereinafter referred to as the “EO.” 19. Citing the threat of terrorism committed by foreign nationals, the EO directs a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens may seek and obtain admission to the United States, particularly (although not exclusively) as refugees. Among other things, the EO imposes a 120-day moratorium on the refugee resettlement program as a whole; proclaims that “that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and therefore “suspend[s]” indefinitely their entry to the country; similarly proclaims that “the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests” of the country. 20. Most relevant to the instant action is Section 3(c) of the EO, in which President Trump proclaims “that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States

of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and that he is therefore “suspend[ing] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order,” with narrow exceptions not relevant here. 21. There are seven countries that fit the criteria in 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12): Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. According to the terms of the EO, therefore, the “entry into the United States” of non-citizens from those countries is “suspended” from 90 days from the date of the EO. The Muslim population of each of the countries enumerated in the executive order exceeds 90%. 22. As authority for his action, President Trump cites section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which grants him authority to suspend the entry of a class of aliens by Proclamation if he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 23. Proclamations pursuant to 212(f) of the INA have been issued by previous presidents, sometimes multiple times in an administration, normally narrowly tailored towards a particular group of individuals from a country, selected because of some affirmative act to violate the laws of the United States, commit crimes against humanity, or otherwise willingly engage in activities the President deems to be contrary to the interests of the United States, though the spouse and children of the described individual are often included even if they have not made any such affirmative acts. A summary of the Proclamations currently in force appears as Exhibit B to this Complaint.

24. The current EO differs from prior Proclamations pursuant to 212(f) of the INA in that the group to be denied entry is described by passive characteristics, rather than affirmative acts, or the affirmative act of a spouse or parent.
Plaintiffs’ Immigration Status Before the EO 25. Plaintiffs are the brothers of U.S. citizen Ghassan Abou Asali and their wives and
children. Plaintiffs have waited 13 years for the final processing of their family visas so that they could reunite in the U.S. All members of the family completed security, medical and other background checks as required by the U.S. Embassy prior to being approved for the final Permanent Resident visas on December 19, 2016. From December 19, 2016 until January 28, 2017 the family were in possession of validly issued and lawful visas and did not engage in any activity that would warrant revocation of the same. 26. Each of the Plaintiffs arrived in the Philadelphia International airport on January 28, 2017, carrying the sealed approved visa packages that were given to the family by the U.S. Embassy. Those visa packages were never opened and remained sealed in the possession of the Plaintiffs. 27. The EO was signed while the Petitioners/Plaintiffs were en route to the United States. Plaintiffs’ Arrival in Philadelphia 28. At approximately 7:45 AM on January 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs arrived at the Philadelphia International Airport. While their plane was at the gate, two CBP officers removed them from the plane and detained them. They asked to contact Ghassan Abou Asali, who was waiting for them at the airport gate, but were refused. 29. The CBP officers informed the family that they had two options: 1) they could leave the U.S. on the same plane on which they had just traveled; or 2) they would be arrested and

imprisoned with their visas taken away, with the result that they would not be allowed to re-enter the U.S. for five years. The Plaintiffs understood the CBP officers to say that if the family left immediately they would be able to return to the U.S. in 90 days. The officers stated that their actions were taken in accordance with the EO that had just been issued. The exact content of the officers’ statements is unclear, because none of the family were fully fluent in English and the officers did not provide an interpreter. 30. The family repeatedly asked to be able to call or speak to their waiting family, but were refused. Seeing no other option, the Plaintiffs agreed to leave the U.S. immediately. At or around 9:57 AM, Ghassan Abou Asali received a phone call from a CBP officer who said the family was leaving. 31. At no time did the CBP officers ask the Plaintiffs anything other than to confirm their country of origin as Syria. No questions were asked about fear of return; no information was provided as to asylum or asylum processes; and no officer reviewed the Plaintiffs’ approved visas. The sealed envelopes from the U.S. consulate were never opened and remain sealed to this day. This is relevant because, for the purpose of any individualized review as contemplated by section 3(g) of the EO, a review of the internal contents of the package is essential. 32. The Plaintiffs’ understanding was that they would be imprisoned and removed if they attempted to remain in the U.S. They also believed that accepting a return to Syria would result in the continuing validity of their Permanent Resident visas. 33. Upon information and knowledge, the CBP had already arranged for the return flights prior to the family even arriving in Philadelphia.

34. The Plaintiffs were terrified by the events of the morning. On the flight back to Qatar and Lebanon Plaintiff Basam Abou Asali had to have oxygen administered to him because of faintness and possible heart palpitations.
35. The CBP officers took Plaintiffs’ visa packages and the family did not receive them back until they arrived back in Lebanon, although when they changed planes in Qatar they were permitted to look at and take photos of their visas – which had been marked ‘revoked’ by the Philadelphia CBP. The revocation was not in accordance with what they understood would happen when they agreed to leave the U.S.
36. The Plaintiffs have returned to Damascus, Syria. They are anxiously waiting to return to the U.S. on the LPR visas that were approved by the U.S. Embassy on December 19, 2016. In Syria, a country currently in a state of war, Plaintiffs face a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or persecution. Furthermore, without an injunction, they will be irreparably harmed by the loss of companionship with family members in the United States, and will be forced to undergo an expensive and cumbersome visa application process that could separate them from their U.S. family for months or years.
37. The case of Darweesh v. Trump (EDNY No, 17-00480) was filed in the Eastern District of New York at approximately 5:30 AM on January 28, 2017. That filing requested class certification for individuals affected by the EO: “refugees, visa holders and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order.” The Petitioners/Plaintiffs are members of that class because they arrived in the U.S. after that filing. Later on January 28, 2017 the Honorable Ann Donnelly signed a TRO protecting all members from any actions that would remove any individuals who are members of the class. Judge Donnelly certified the class as nationwide.

COUNT ONE VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHTS AS MEMBERS OF A
PROTECTED CLASS 38. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 39. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs were physically present in the U.S. in the Philadelphia
International Airport during the time in which a class action for individuals affected by the EO had been filed and was pending in the Eastern District of New York. That action resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order, prohibiting the use of the EO to remove persons, like the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, who arrived in the U.S. with valid travel documents. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs are members of this protected class and should be provided the same relief, to wit: return to the U.S. to complete their admission process. Darweesh v. Trump, 17-cv-480 E.D.N.Y., January 28, 2017. 40. Respondents/Defendants’ actions refusing access to family or counsel and refusing their release from custody are the same as actions in related cases in two other jurisdictions.
COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1998, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
[ACCARDI DOCTRINE] 41. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 42. The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations, including 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and the United

Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub.L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle Petitioners/Plaintiffs to an opportunity to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. These provisions also entitle Petitioners/Plaintiffs to a grant of withholding of removal and CAT relief upon a showing that they meet the applicable legal standards. Respondents/Defendants’ actions in seeking to return Petitioners/Plaintiffs to Syria, taken pursuant to the EO, deprive Petitioners/Plaintiffs of their statutory and regulatory rights. 43. Respondents/Defendants’ actions in seeking to expel Petitioners/Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the EO, deprives Petitioners/Plaintiffs of their statutory and regulatory rights in violation of Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). Respondents/Defendants’ failure to follow the required regulations prejudicially deprived plaintiffs of fundamental due process and statutory rights, and this denial of process was so egregious as to shock the conscience. 44. The complete lack of individual assessment of Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ cases violates the Accardi doctrine, which prohibits blacklists and also violates the instructions within the EO itself.
COUNT THREE FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
DENIAL OF RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM
45. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

46. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, due process requires that arriving immigrants be afforded those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that “[m]inimum due process rights attach to statutory rights.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996)).
47. The United States government is obligated by United States and international law to hear the asylum claims of noncitizens presenting themselves at United States borders and ports of entry. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); see also id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii).
48. Congress has given asylum seekers the right to present evidence to an Immigration Judge, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B), the right to move to reconsider any decision that the applicant is removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5), and the right to judicial review by a court of appeals of final agency orders denying asylum on the merits and directing removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
49. Consistent with these United States statutory and international law obligations, individuals arriving at United States ports of entry must be afforded an opportunity to

apply for asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection and be promptly received and processed by United States authorities. 50. Having presented themselves at a United States port of entry, Plaintiffs were entitled to apply for asylum and to be received and processed by United States authorities. 51. Respondents’ actions in denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to apply for asylum, taken pursuant to the EO, violate the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT FOUR FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DENIAL OF RIGHT TO WITHHOLDING/CAT PROTECTION 52. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 53. Under United States law as well as human rights conventions, the United States may not return (“refoul”) a noncitizen to a country where she may face torture or persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231). 54. Respondents’ actions in seeking to return Petitioners to Syria taken pursuant to the EO, deprive Petitioners of their rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) and the Convention Against Torture without due process of law.

COUNT FIVE VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 55. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 56. The EO exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, Islam, and gives preference to other religious faiths, principally Christianity. The EO therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by not pursuing a course of neutrality with regard to different religious faiths.
COUNT SIX VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE 57. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 58. The EO discriminates against Petitioners/Plaintiffs on the basis of their country of origin
and imputed religion, without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 59. Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a disparate impact on—Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims based on their ethnicity or national origin, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 60. Respondents/Defendants have demonstrated an intent to discriminate against Petitioners/Plaintiffs on the basis of religion through repeated public statements that make clear the EO was designed to prohibit the entry of Muslims to the United States. See Michael D. Shear; Helene Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2017), (“[President Trump] ordered that Christians and

others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.”); Carol Morello, Trump Signs Order Temporarily Halting Admission of Refugees, Promises Priority for Christians, Wash. Post (Jan. 27, 2017). 61. Applying a general law in a fashion that discriminates on the basis of religion in this way violates Petitioners/ Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1999); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 (1886). Petitioners/Plaintiffs satisfy the Supreme Court’s test to determine whether a facially neutral law – in the case, the EO and federal immigration law – has been applied in a discriminatory fashion. The Supreme Court requires an individual bringing suit to challenge the application of a law bear the burden of demonstrating a “prima facie case of discriminatory purpose.” Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-67 (1977). This test examines the impact of the official action, whether there has been a clear pattern unexplainable on other grounds besides discrimination, the historical background of the decision, the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision, and departures from the normal procedural sequence. Id. 62. Here, President Donald Trump and senior staff have made clear that the EO will be applied to primarily exclude individuals on the basis of their national origin and being Muslim. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration, (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald- j.trump- statement-on-preventing-muslim- immigration (“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country and DHSs representatives can figure out what is going on.”); Abby Phillip and Abigail

Hauslohner, Trump on the Future of Proposed Muslim Ban, Registry: ‘You know my plans’, Wash. Post (Dec. 22, 2016). Further, the President has promised that preferential treatment will be given to Christians, demonstrating the special preferences and discriminatory impact that the EO has upon Petitioners/Plaintiffs who, upon information and belief, are perceived to be Muslim based on their national origin or ethnicity. See supra. 63. Thus, Respondents/Defendants have applied the EO with forbidden animus and discriminatory intent in violation of the equal protection of the Fifth Amendment and violated Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights.
COUNT SEVEN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 64. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 65. Respondents/Defendants detained and mistreated Petitioners/Plaintiffs solely pursuant to an executive order issued on January 27, 2017, which expressly discriminates against Petitioners/Plaintiffs on the basis of their country of origin and was substantially motivated by animus toward Muslims. 66. The EO exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, Islam, and gives preference to other religious faiths, principally Christianity. 67. The INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. §1152(a)(1)(A). 68. The INA and implementing regulations, including 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum), and 8

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub.L. No.105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle Petitioners/Plaintiffs to an opportunity to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 69. Defendants’ actions in detaining and mistreating Petitioners/Plaintiffs were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of APA § 706(2)(A); contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in violation of APA § 706(2)(B); in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, in violation of APA § 706(2)(C); and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of § 706(2)(D).
COUNT EIGHT VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. § 1152 70. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 71. The EO discriminates against Petitioners/Plaintiffs on the basis of their nationality,
without sufficient justification, and therefore violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152.
COUNT NINE VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. § 1153 72. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

73. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have valid U.S. visas and approved legal permanent resident status, and denial of admission into the United States violates 8 U.S.C. § 1153. COUNT TEN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, NARROWLY TAILORED EXCEPTIONS TO DUE PROCESS TO SERVE A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
74. Petitioners/Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
75. Visa revocations or denials that implicate Constitutional rights must be supported by "a facially legitimate and bona fide reason." Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972)).
76. In contrast to previous Proclamations under 212(f) of the INA, the current EO is not issued “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.” On the contrary, not only is the EO overbroad, and contrary to the statutory prohibition on discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of national origin, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), it is not facially legitimate or bona fide for the President to claim that it serves a compelling state interest to deny entry to a large class of foreign nationals who are not accused of committing any affirmative acts that contradict the interests of the United States.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief: (1) Issue an Order or a Writ of Mandamus or Habeas Corpus requiring Defendants to return Petitioners/Plaintiffs to the U.S. at government expense;

(2) Enter a judgment declaring that Respondents/Defendants’ detention and removal/refusal to
admit the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is unauthorized by statute and contrary to law;
(3) Issue an order vacating the revocation of the Petitioners /Plaintiffs’ visas, or in the
alternative, declaring the revocation to be unlawful;
(4) Issue an Order requiring Petitioner/Plaintiff’s admission to the United States per the terms of
the Immigration and Nationality Act and their already approved visas for Lawful Permanent
Residence;
(5) Award Petitioner/Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
(6) Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.
DATED: January 31, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ Joseph C. Hohenstein, Esq., of Counsel Landau, Hess, Simon and Choi 190 N. Independence Mall West Suite 602 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-925-0705 215-925-5105 (fax) joe@lhscimmigration.com
Ayodele Gansallo, Esq., LLM (admitted in New York) HIAS Pennsylvania 2100 Arch Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 215 832 0900 215 832 0919 (fax)

agansallo@hiaspa.org
Laurel Scott (admitted in Texas) THE LAW OFFICE OF LAUREL SCOTT, PLLC 1515 Market Street, PMB 517 Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 713-467-5800 laurel@scottimmigration.net
Paul Messing Jonathan Feinberg Susan Lin KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING, & FEINBERG 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 925-4400 Fax: (215) 925-5365 pmessing@krlawphila.com jfeinberg@krlawphila.com slin@krlawphila.com
Mary Catherine Roper Molly Tack-Hooper AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 592-1513 ext. 116 Fax: (215) 592-1343 mroper@aclupa.org mtack-hooper@aclupa.org
Edward Diver Irv Ackelsberg Peter Leckman LANGER GROGAN & DIVER 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, PA 19130 (215) 320-5660 (215) 320-5703 (fax) jgrogan@langergrogan.com ndiver@langergrogan.com

iackelsberg@langergrogan.com pleckman@langergrogan.com

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Basam ABOU ASALI, Jozfin ALSHAAR, Hassan ABOU ASALI, Jurjeet ABOU ASALI, Sara ABOU ASALI and M.A.A., a minor, by his parents, Hassan and Jurjeet Abou Asali,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), John KELLY, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP, Kevin DONOHUE, Port Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of CBP, Donald J. TRUMP, President of United States, And JOHN DOES 1-5,
Respondents/Defendants.

Case No. _____________

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the Court finds that:
1. Plaintiffs-Petitioners have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that Plaintiffs were denied entry to the United States in violation of their federal statutory and constitutional rights.
2. Plaintiffs-Petitioners are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of interim injunctive relief.
3. The balance of equities weighs sharply in favor of Plaintiffs-Petitioners and granting interim injunctive relief.
4. The public interest weighs in favor of Plaintiffs-Petitioners and granting interim injunctive relief.
1

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants-Respondents are enjoined and restrained from barring Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ return to the United States. 2. Defendants-Respondents shall within 48 hours reinstate Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ revoked visas or issue Plaintiffs-Petitioners new visas for Lawful Permanent Residence. 3. Defendants-Respondents shall transport Plaintiffs-Petitioners back to the United States at government expense. 4. Defendants-Respondents shall admit Plaintiffs-Petitioners to the United States under the terms of their previously approved visas for Lawful Permanent Residence. 5. Defendants-Respondents shall communicate the terms of this Court’s Order immediately to officers in Damascus, Syria and to authorities at the airport from which PlaintiffsPetitioners shall depart for the United States.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________

______________________

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Basam ABOU ASALI, Jozfin ALSHAAR, Hassan ABOU ASALI, Jurjeet ABOU ASALI, Sara ABOU ASALI and M.A.A., a minor, by his parents, Hassan and Jurjeet Abou Asali,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), John KELLY, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP, Kevin DONOHUE, Port Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of CBP, Donald J. TRUMP, President of United States, And JOHN DOES 1-5,
Respondents/Defendants.

Case No. _____________

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs-Petitioners, by and through undersigned Counsel respectfully request that the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, incorporated herein, Plaintiffs-Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant the following interim relief as set forth in the foregoing proposed Order: (1) DefendantsRespondents are enjoined and restrained from barring Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ return to the United
States; (2) Defendants-Respondents shall within 48 hours reinstate Plaintiffs-Petitioners’
revoked visas or issue Plaintiffs-Petitioners new visas for Lawful Permanent Residence; (3) Defendants-Respondents shall transport Plaintiffs-Petitioners back to the United States at government expense; (4) Defendants-Respondents shall admit Plaintiffs-Petitioners to the United

1

States under the terms of their previously approved visas for Lawful Permanent Residence; and
(5) Defendants-Respondents shall communicate the terms of this Court’s order immediately to
officers in Damascus, Syria and to authorities at the airport from which Plaintiffs-Petitioners shall depart for the United States.
Wherefore, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, PlaintiffsPetitioners respectfully request that the Court grant this motion.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 31, 2017

/s/Joseph C. Hohenstein, Esq., of Counsel Landau, Hess, Simon and Choi 190 N. Independence Mall West Suite 602 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-925-0705 215-925-5105 (fax) joe@lhscimmigration.com
Paul Messing Jonathan Feinberg Susan Lin KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING, & FEINBERG 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 925-4400 Fax: (215) 925-5365 pmessing@krlawphila.com jfeinberg@krlawphila.com slin@krlawphila.com
Mary Catherine Roper Molly Tack-Hooper AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 592-1513 ext. 116 Fax: (215) 592-1343 mroper@aclupa.org mtack-hooper@aclupa.org
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Basam ABOU ASALI, Jozfin ALSHAAR, Hassan ABOU ASALI, Jurjeet ABOU ASALI, Sara ABOU ASALI and M.A.A., a minor, by his parents, Hassan and Jurjeet Abou Asali,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), John KELLY, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP, Kevin DONOHUE, Port Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of CBP, Donald J. TRUMP, President of United States, And JOHN DOES 1-5,
Respondents/Defendants.

Case No. _____________

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs-Petitioners, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the

Court issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the government Defendants-Respondents

from barring Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ entry into the United States pursuant to the unlawful

executive order entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

States” (hereinafter, “EO” or “executive order”) issued by the President on January 27, 2017.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners request the reinstatement of their previously approved

visas and their immediate return at government expense and admission into the United States, as

set forth in the accompanying proposed order.

1

The relief requested in this Memorandum is fully consistent with that granted in other cases decided in the four days since the issuance of the EO. In Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. 17-702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017), Judge Gee ordered the return of an Iranian who was similarly returned to his country of origin pursuant to the EO, finding that “Petitioner has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in establishing that removal violates the Establishment Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and his rights to Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” Order at 2. Each of the other courts to address challenges to implementation of the EO has granted preliminary relief. See Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17-480, 2017 WL 388504, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017) (“The petitions have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution”); Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-10154, 2017 WL 386550 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. 17-126, 2017 WL 388532 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017). I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs-Petitioners are natives of Syria. After waiting 13 years, they were approved for Lawful Permanent Resident visas by the U.S. consulate. In reliance on these approved visas, they arrived at Philadelphia International Airport—their first port of entry in the United States—at approximately 7:45 AM on Saturday, January 28, 2017 on a flight from Qatar. They were returned to Qatar less than three hours later.
While their plane was at the gate, they were taken off the plane and placed directly into a “secondary inspection.” Two Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers effected the family’s removal from the plane and then detained them. The Petitioners-Plaintiffs, Basam Abou Asali and Jozfin Alshaaf, were taken out first and the other family members were placed
2

with them approximately 15 minutes later. During the time of the family’s detention CBP officers directly refused their requests to speak with the family member, Ghassan Abou Asali, who was waiting for them at the airport gate. The CBP officers also failed to provide any interpreter for the family who do not speak English fluently.
The CBP officers informed the family that they had only two options: 1) returning on the same plane on which they had just traveled or 2) being arrested and imprisoned with their visas taken away and an order that they could not return for 5 years. The officers implied that if the family chose to return immediately the LPR visas would be able to be used within 90 days. The officers stated that their actions were taken in accordance with the EO that had just been issued.
At no time did the CBP officers ask the Petitioners-Plaintiffs anything other than to confirm their country of origin as Syria. No questions were asked about fear of return; no information was provided as to asylum or asylum processes; and no individual review of any of the already approved Permanent Resident visas was conducted. The sealed envelopes from the U.S. consulate were never opened and remain sealed to this day. This is relevant because, for the purpose of any individualized review as contemplated by section 3(g) of the EO, a review of the internal contents of the package is essential. II. ARGUMENT
The standards for evaluating motions for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction are the same and are well established. The Court must consider 1) whether movant has a likelihood of success on the merits; 2) whether irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; 3) whether the opposing party will be harmed by a stay; and 4) whether a stay would be in the public interest. See Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1754-55 (2009).
Each of these factors supports the issuance of a temporary restraining order here.
3

A. Plaintiffs-Petitioners Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits Plaintiffs-Petitioners are unquestionably likely to succeed on the merits. The executive order is so plainly illegal that yesterday, the then-Acting Attorney General of the United States, announced that she would refuse to defend it in court. Letter from Sally Yates, Jan. 30, 2017, available at, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-Letter-From-SallyYates.html.
1. Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ Procedural Due Process Claims Are Likely To Succeed.
CBP acting pursuant to the EO, unlawfully denied Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ liberty interests under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioners were physically present in the United States with valid Lawful Permanent Resident visas, but were denied entry. While applications for additional relief from deportation should have been unnecessary given the existence of their Lawful Permanent Resident visas, they were also prevented from applying for asylum or withholding protections under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Additionally, due process requires that arriving immigrants be afforded those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that “[m]inimum due process rights attach to statutory rights.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996)). See also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (demonstrating that immigrants who have not yet been admitted are not categorically excluded from these protections). The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States. . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b).” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).
4

In particular, Congress has given asylum seekers the right to present evidence to an Immigration Judge, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B), the right to move to reconsider any decision that the applicant is removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5), and the right to judicial review by a court of appeals of final agency orders denying asylum on the merits and directing removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Under United States law as well as human rights conventions, the United States may not return (“refoul”) a noncitizen to a country where she may face torture or persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture, implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231).
The due process clause therefor requires that Plaintiffs-Petitioners have the ability to apply for asylum and withholding under CAT before they may be subject to removal. The EO, however, imposes a categorical prohibition on evaluating asylum and CAT claims and deprives petitioners of any legal process. In Landon v. Plasencia , the Supreme Court held that in evaluating immigrants’ procedural due process rights when seeking admission to the United States that “the courts must consider the interest at stake for the individual, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used as well as the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982).
Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ interests in this case are weighty: they both stand to lose the right to live and work in “this land of freedom.” Id.; see also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154 (1945) (noting that individuals have a liberty interest in proper procedures being applied in deportation proceedings). Plaintiffs-Petitioners also have considered interests in avoiding deprivation of life and torture if forced to return to Syria, and have strong family connections to
5

the United States. Landon, 459 U.S at 34 (recognizing family and personal connections within the United States as an individual interest). Additionally, because Plaintiffs-Petitioners have already been through substantial procedural screenings and approved for admission with immigrant visas, the government’s interest “in efficient administration of the immigration laws” has already been satisfied. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 34. The liberty interests of Plaintiffs-Petitioners and extreme risks of injury that will result from arbitrary deprivation of Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ rights are therefore substantial and well-recognized by existing precedent, and their denial of admission without the ability to apply for asylum or withholding under CAT offends due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ Accardi Claims Are Likely To Succeed. Defendants-Respondents’ actions in returning Plaintiffs-Petitioners to Syria, taken pursuant to the EO, deprived Plaintiffs-Petitioners of their statutory and regulatory rights in violation of Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), which stands for the principle that agencies must comply with their own regulations. See Leslie v. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 171, 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (recognizing “the long-settled principle that rules promulgated by a federal agency that regulate the rights and interests of others are controlling upon the agency”); see also Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 (1959) (reinstating Interior Department employee after removal in violation of Department regulations). The Supreme Court has explained that this principle is grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as well as administrative common law and the nature of legislative rulemaking. In the Third Circuit, Accardi relief is available when the agency fails to follow regulations “protecting fundamental statutory or constitutional rights of parties appearing before
6

it,” or where the Plaintiff is prejudiced by the failure. Leslie, 611 F.3d at 180. Only where statutory or constitutional rights are not implicated must the plaintiff show prejudice. Id.
The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations, including 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture, implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub.L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle Plaintiffs-Petitioners to an opportunity to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. These provisions also entitle PlaintiffsPetitioners to a grant of withholding of removal and CAT relief upon a showing that they meet the applicable legal standards.
Defendants-Respondents’ actions in returning Petitioners to Syria, taken pursuant to the EO, deprived Plaintiffs-Petitioners of their statutory and regulatory rights under the above provision. This error was clearly prejudicial in that Plaintiffs-Petitioners were denied the opportunity to apply for the above relief and were wrongfully deprived of liberty and placed at serious risk. In particular, DHS’s failure to follow its own regulations in affording PlaintiffsPetitioners an opportunity to apply for asylum and other forms of humanitarian relief constitute an Accardi violation and should be set aside.
7

3. Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ Equal Protection Claims Are Likely To Succeed.
Plaintiffs-Petitioners claim a violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, on the ground that the EO constitutes intentional discrimination by the federal government on the basis of religion and national origin.
The Supreme Court has identified three ways in which a litigant may demonstrate intentional discrimination by a government actor. First, a law is discriminatory on its face if it expressly classifies persons on the basis of a protected category. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 213, 227-29 (1995). Second, a law that is facially neutral nonetheless violates equal protection if it is applied in a discriminatory way. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 (1886). Third, a law that is facially neutral and applied evenhandedly nonetheless violates equal protection if it was motivated by discriminatory animus and its application has discriminatory effects. See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1977).
Discrimination on the basis of religion is a violation of equal protection. See City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976) (citing religion as an “inherently suspect distinction”); see also Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 715 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 644 (1978) (“In my view, the Religion Clauses—the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Religious Test Clause, Art. VI, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause as applied to religion—all speak with one voice on this point: Absent the most unusual circumstances, one’s religion ought not affect one’s legal rights or duties or benefits.”).
Similarly, “national origin . . . [is] so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice
8

and antipathy.” City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). Therefore, a government action based on animus against, and that has a discriminatory effect on, Muslims, perceived Muslims, or individuals from the countries in question violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.
Though Plaintiffs are Christians, and not Muslims, a majority of Syrians are Muslim. Petitioners allege that their rights under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause have been violated by government action requiring discriminatory action, on the basis of their national origin and perceived religion. Discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification violates the Due Process Clause. Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 373-74. The EO specifically grants priority to non-Muslims. It is clear from the President’s public statements that the EO will result in the differential treatment of individuals and perceived members of one religious group, Islam, and will favor individuals of other religious groups. This differential treatment violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.
Petitioners allege that their rights under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause were violated by government action motivated by forbidden discriminatory animus against individuals from Syrians and Muslims and perceived Muslims. See Antonelli v. New Jersey, 419 F.3d 267, 274 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Intentional discrimination can be shown when … a facially neutral law or policy that is applied evenhandedly is motivated by discriminatory intent and has a racially discriminatory impact”); Jana-Rock Const., Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Econ. Dev., 438 F.3d 195, 204 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Government action . . . violates principles of equal protection ‘if it was motivated by discriminatory animus and its application results in a discriminatory effect.’”); see also Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Mhany Mgmt., Inc. v. Cty. of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581, 605-13 (2d Cir. 2016).
9

“When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, . . . judicial deference is no longer justified.” Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265–66 (1977). Petitioners challenging such facially neutral laws on equal protection grounds bear the burden of making out a “prima facie case of discriminatory purpose.” Courts evaluate whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose by examining the factors the Supreme Court set out in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252, 266-7 (1977). The Arlington Heights test looks to the impact of the official action, whether there has been a clear pattern unexplainable on other grounds besides discrimination, the historical background of the decision, the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision, and departures from the normal procedural sequence. Substantive departures may also be relevant “if the factors usually considered important by the decision maker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached.” Vill. of Arlington Heights., 429 U.S. at 266-7.
In this case, the Arlington Heights factors are clearly met. The impact of the EO will clearly fall disproportionately on individuals from the countries cited in the EO and Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim. As an initial matter, when asked about his proposed ban on Muslims in a July 2016 interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, the then Republican presidential nominee explained, “I’m looking now at territory. People were so upset when I used the word ‘Muslim’: ‘Oh, you can’t use the word “Muslim.”’ Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.” See Jenna Johnson, Donald Trump Is Expanding His Muslim Ban, Not Rolling It Back, Washington Post (July 24, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/postpolitics/wp/2016/07/24/donald-trump-is-expandinghis-muslim-ban-not-rolling-itback/?utm_term=.139272f67dd2. Consistent with this statement,
10

the countries targeted by the EO are all majority Muslim. Indeed, on January 28, 2017, Rudy Giuliani, who is acting as an aide to Donald Trump, revealed on Fox News that he was involved in drafting the EO and that the president had tasked him with creating a “Muslim ban” that could work legally. Rob Tornoe, Rudy Giuliani: President Trump asked me to create a legal ‘Muslim ban’, Phila. Inquirer (Jan. 29, 2017), http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/RudyGiuliani-President-Trump-asked-me-to-create-a-legal-Muslim-ban-.html. It is clear from the President’s public statements that the EO is intended not only to target Muslim-majority countries, but is also intended to have a disparate impact as between Muslims and non-Muslims from the same countries.
The historical background of this drafting decision reveals a long line of public statements by President Trump indicating animus towards Muslims. See, e.g., Theodore Schleifer, Donald Trump: ‘I think Islam hates us’, CNN (Mar. 10, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donaldtrump-islam-hates-us. The sequence of events leading up to this decision reveals that President Trump has long publicly stated that he plans to ban Muslims from entering the United States. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration, (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-onpreventing-muslimimmigration (“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”); Abby Phillip and Abigail Hauslohner, Trump on the Future of Proposed Muslim Ban, Registry: ‘You know my plans’, Wash. Post (Dec. 22, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/postpolitics/wp/2016/12/21/trump-on-the-future-of-proposed-muslim-ban-registryyou-know-myplans/?utm_term=.a22a50598ea3.
11

Given the disparate impact of the EO, a historical background of public statements of animus against Muslims, the specific sequence of promises by President Trump that he would “ban” Muslims, and the substantive departure from prior policy on the basis of factors that strongly favor a decision other than the one reached, the Arlington Heights factors are clearly met. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. at 266-7. Petitioners have therefore asserted a prima facie claim of discriminatory purpose and of discriminatory impact. It is the government’s burden to rebut the resulting “presumption of unconstitutional action.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241 (1976).
4. Plaintiffs-Petitioners Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Administrative Procedures Act Claims
Finally, Defendants-Respondents’ actions in detaining and mistreating PlaintiffsPetitioners were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
The scope of this Court’s review is delineated by 5 U.S.C. § 706, which provides that the “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; . . . [or] (D) without observance of procedure required by law . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (emphasis added). The APA provides further that, “[t]o the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and
12

determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.” Id. § 706 (emphasis added).
Defendants-Respondents detained and mistreated Plaintiffs-Petitioners solely pursuant to the January 27th EO, which expressly discriminates against Plaintiffs-Petitioners on the basis of their country of origin and was substantially motivated by animus toward Muslims, in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See supra Section II(A)(4). The EO exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, Islam, and gives preference to other religious faiths, principally Christianity. Respondents’ actions were therefore “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in violation of § 706(2)(B). Further, the INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). This section establishes a nondiscrimination principle that extends to the agency’s processing of applicants for entry at the border. Were this not so, this section would have no practical effect, since CBP could simply deny entry to individuals based on the above prohibited characteristics to individuals whom DHS had otherwise duly issued a visa. Defendants-Respondents’ detention and mistreatment of Plaintiffs-Petitioners despite their possession of valid entry documents is therefore contrary to the INA and in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). As set forth above, supra Section II(A)(1), Defendants-Respondents’ actions also violated procedural requirements of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act by returning Plaintiffs-Petitioners and members of the proposed class to their home countries without the opportunity to present claims for asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection. Individuals arriving at United States ports of entry must afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection and be promptly received and processed by United States authorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); see also id.
13

§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). The Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations, including 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), Pub.L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle PlaintiffsPetitioners to an opportunity to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Defendants-Respondents’ actions, in violating the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and these various statutory provisions, also violate § 706(2)(D) of the APA, which prohibits agency action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.”
For all of the reasons set forth in this section, Defendants-Respondents’ challenged actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In addition, Defendants-Respondents’ actions were arbitrary and capricious for their failure to consider “all relevant issues and factors.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 48-49 (1983)). Under State Farm, for an agency action to survive arbitrary-and-capricious review, it “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (internal quotation omitted). This “hard look” standard exceeds the “rational basis” standard applied under the Due Process Clause. Id. at 43 n.9. Here, the government has failed to consider many relevant issues and factors, including evidence regarding the low risk to U.S. citizens posed by refugees, and the relative risk presented by those arriving on different visa categories.
14

B. Plaintiffs-Petitioners Are Likely to Suffer Irreparable Harm, and the Balance of Harms and Public Interest Favor the Granting of an Injunction Plaintiffs-Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary
injunction, and a TRO is urgently required. They came to the United States in reliance on the United States’ promise that they would be allowed to enter the country. Intending to become permanent residents, as their visas allowed, they sold belongings and property. Yet, when they arrived in Philadelphia, they were given no information and forced to return to Syria, and they were not given any opportunity provide information concerning the danger they faced upon return to a war-torn country as religious minorities. Plaintiffs-Petitioners face a risk of death, serious bodily injury, and persecution if they are not allowed to return to the United States.
Their family, including two members who recently entered on the same visa approvals, are in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and are waiting to greet them. They have waited 13 years for the processing of their visas and arrival to the United States as permanent residents. Without an injunction allowing them to return, they will be irreparably harmed by the loss of companionship with family members in the United States, and will be forced to undergo an expensive and cumbersome visa application process that could separate them from their U.S. family for months or years, all while facing the risks resulting from their return to Syria.
There is no question that the balance of equities tips in their favor as they have already been cleared by security checks and found to be admissible, they face a dangerous and unstable situation in Syria, and there is no harm in allowing them to enter the United States given the many years of vetting they have already gone through. Given the discriminatory nature of the EO and the humanitarian interests in unifying the family, an injunction is also in the public interest.
15

III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs-Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant this motion for temporary
restraining order and enter the attached proposed order.
Dated: January 31, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Joseph C. Hohenstein, Esq., of Counsel Landau, Hess, Simon and Choi 190 N. Independence Mall West Suite 602 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-925-0705 215-925-5105 (fax) joe@lhscimmigration.com
Paul Messing Jonathan Feinberg Susan Lin KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING, & FEINBERG 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 925-4400 Fax: (215) 925-5365 pmessing@krlawphila.com jfeinberg@krlawphila.com slin@krlawphila.com
Mary Catherine Roper Molly Tack-Hooper AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 592-1513 ext. 116 Fax: (215) 592-1343 mroper@aclupa.org mtack-hooper@aclupa.org
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Joseph C. Hohenstein, hereby certify that on January 31, 2017, the foregoing filing was
served on counsel for Defendants-Respondents via e-mail to:
Susan Becker, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 susan.becker@usdoj.gov
/s/ Joseph C. Hohenstein Joseph C. Hohenstein

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AT PHILADELPHIA

Basam ABOU ASALI, Jozfin ALSHAAR, Hassan ABOU ASALI, Jurjeet ABOU ASALI, Sara ABOU ASALI and M.A.A., a minor, by his parents, Hassan and Jurjeet Abou Asali,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), John KELLY, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP, Kevin DONOHUE, Port Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of CBP, Donald J. TRUMP, President of United States, And JOHN DOES 1-5,
Respondents/Defendants.

Case No. _____________

Exhibit

EXHIBIT LIST

A Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” by President Donald J. Trump dated January 27, 2017

B All Presidential Proclamations Pursuant to INA Sec 212(F) Currently In Effect, According to the Department of State

C Petitioners’ flight itinerary for January 29, 2017

D Decision and Order from U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York Case No. 17 Civ. 480 (AMW) by Judge Ann M. Donnelly dated January 28, 2017

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE ORDER

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visaissuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy . It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5 . Realignment of the U. S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religiousbased persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for ail travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec . 9 . Visa Validity Reciprocity . The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec . 10 . Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorismrelated offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related
AILA Doc. No. 17012560 . (Posted 1/26/17)

organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11 . General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017.
# # #
The White House· 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ·Washington DC 20500 · 202-456-11 l1
AILA Doc. No. 17012560. (Posted 1/26/17)

I
•

EXHIBITB ALL PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS PURSUANT TO INA SEC.
212(F) CURRENTLY IN EFFECT, ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Listed below are the names of each Proclamation, in alphabetical order, the affected group, the date of issuance, and the name of the President who issued the Proclamation.
Belarus Proclamation 8015
Affected Group: (a) Members of the government of Alyaksandr Lukashenka and other persons who formulate, implement, participate in, or benefit from policies or actions, including electoral fraud, human rights abuses, or corruption, that undermine or injure democratic institutions or impede the transition to democracy in Belarus; (b) Persons who through their business dealings with Belarusian government officials derive significant financial benefit from policies or actions, including electoral fraud, human rights abuses, or corruption, that undermine or injure democratic institutions or impede the transition to democracy in Belarus; and (c) The spouses of persons described in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
Date of Proclamation, and president issuing Proclamation: May 16, 2006. President Bush.
Bosnia Proclamation 6749
Affected Group: (a) [M]embers of the authorities, including legislative authorities, in those areas ofthe Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the control of Bosnian Serb forces; officers of the Bosnian Serb military and paramilitary forces; and those acting on behalf of such authorities or forces; (b) persons found, after September 23, 1994, to have provided financial, material, logistical, military, or other tangible support to Bosnian Serb forces in violation of relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions; and (c) persons in or resident in those areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the control ofBosnian Serb forces found to have violated or contributed to the violation of the measures set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 820 of April17, 1993, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 942 of September 23, 1994.
Date ofProclamation, and president issuing Proclamation: October 25, 1994. President Clinton.
Combat Trafficking In Persons Proclamation 8342
Affected Group: (a) Senior government officials-defined as the heads of ministries or agencies and officials occupying positions within the two bureaucratic levels below those top positions-responsible

for domestic law enforcement, justice, or labor affairs who have impeded their governments' antitrafficking efforts, have failed to implement their governments' antitrafficking laws and policies, or who otherwise bear responsibility for their governments' failures to take steps recognized internationally as appropriate to combat trafficking in persons, and who are members of governments for which I have made a determination pursuant to section 11 0(d)(l )-(2) or (4) of the Act, in the current year and at least once in the preceding 3 years; (b) The spouses of persons described in subsection (a) ofthis section.
Date of Proclamation, and pre ident issuing Proclamation: January 22, 2009. President Bush.
Corruption Proclamation 7750
Affected Group: (a) Public officials or former public officials whose solicitation or acceptance of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of their public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. (b) Persons whose provision of or offer to provide any article of monetary value or other benefit to any public official in exchange for any act or omission in the perfonnance of such official's public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. (c) Public officials or former public officials whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with the judicial, electoral, or other public processes has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. (d) The spouses, children, and dependent household members of persons described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) above, who are beneficiaries of any articles of monetary value or other benefits obtained by such persons.
Date of Proclamation, and pre ident issuing Proclamation: January 12, 2004. President Bush.
Cuba Proclamation 5377
Affected Group: (a) [O]fficers or employees ofthe Government of Cuba or the Communist Party of Cuba holding diplomatic or official passports; and (b) individuals who, notwithstanding the type of passport that they hold, are considered by the Secretary of State or his designee to be officers or employees ofthe Government of Cuba or the Communist Party of Cuba.
Date of Proclamation, and president issuing Proclamation: October 4, 1985. President Reagan.
Haiti Proclamation 6685
Affected Group: (a) [A]ll officers of the Haitian military, including the police, and their immediate families;

(b) the major participants in the coup d' e 'tat of 1991 and in the illegal governments since the coup d'e 'tat, and their immediate families; and (c) those employed by or acting on behalf of the Haitian military, and their immediate families.
Date of Proclamation, and president is uing Proclamation: May 8, 1994. President Clinton.
High Seas Interdiction Proclamation 4865
Affected Group: [U]ndocumented aliens from the high seas.
Date of Proclama6on. and president issuing Proclamation: September 29, 1981. President Reagan.
Human Rights Proclamation 8697
Affected Group: (a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so. (b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
Date of Proclamation, and president issui11g Proclamation: August 4, 2011. President Obama.
Lebanon Proclamation 8158
Affected Group: (a) Lebanese government officials, former Lebanese government officials, and private persons who deliberately undermine or harm Lebanon's sovereignty, its legitimate government, or its democratic institutions, or contribute to the breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through the sponsorship of terrorism, politically motivated violence or intimidation, or the reassertion of Syrian control in Lebanon; (b) Syrian government officials, former Syrian government officials, and persons who meet the criteria for designation under section 3(a)(i) or (ii) ofExecutive Order 13338 ofMay 11, 2004, who deliberately undermine or harm Lebanon's sovereignty, its legitimate government, or its democratic institutions, or contribute to the breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through the sponsorship of terrorism, politically motivated violence or intimidation, or the reassertion of Syrian control in Lebanon;

(c) Persons in Lebanon who act on behalf of, or actively promote the interests of, Syrian government officials by deliberately undermining or harming Lebanon's sovereignty, its legitimate government, or its democratic institutions, or contribute to the breakdown in the rule oflaw in Lebanon, including through the sponsorship of terrorism, politically motivated violence or intimidation, or the reassertion of Syrian control in Lebanon; (d) Persons who, through their business dealings with any of the persons described in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, derive significant financial benefit from, or materially support, policies or actions that deliberately undermine or harm Lebanon's sovereignty, its legitimate government, or its democratic institutions, or contribute to the breakdown in the rule oflaw in Lebanon, including through the sponsorship of terrorism, politically motivated violence or intimidation, or the reassertion of Syrian control in Lebanon; and (e) The spouses and dependent children of persons described in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
Date of Proclamation, and president is uing Proclamation: July 3, 2007. President Bush.
Presidential Proclamation 8693, Travel Bans
Affected Group: (a) Any alien who meets one or more of the specific criteria for the imposition of a travel ban provided for in a United Nations Security Council resolution referenced in Annex A to this proclamation. (b) Any alien who meets one or more of the specific criteria contained in an Executive Order referenced in Annex B to this proclamation. [Note: There is a lengthy list of UN Documents and international agreements attached to the proclamation.]
Date of Proclamation, and president issuing Proclamation: July 27, 2011. President Obama.
Serbia and Montenegro Proclamation 7249
Affected Group: (a) Slobodan Milosevic and other persons who, as senior FRY or Serbian officials or as members of the FRY and/or Serbian military or paramilitary forces, formulated, implemented, or carried out repressive actions against the civilian population in Kosovo; (b) Officials ofthe Government ofthe FRY or ofthe Republic of Serbia and FRY nationals who fonnulate, implement, or carry out policies obstructing or suppressing freedom of speech or of the press in the FRY, Serbia, Montenegro, or Kosovo, or who otherwise are obstructing efforts to establish a peaceful and stable democracy in these areas; (c) Officials ofthe Government of the FRY or of the Republic of Serbia and FRY nationals who, individually or as officers or employees of business or financial entities, engage in financial transactions that materially support the Government of the FRY, the Government of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, or members of the Milosevic regime; and

(d) Any spouse, minor child, close relative, or close personal associate of any person described in subsections (a) through (c) above, if the entry into the United States of such spouse, minor child, close relative, or close personal associate would not be in the interests of the United States in light of the objectives of this proclamation.
Date ofProclamat1on, and pre ident is uing Proclamation: November 12, 1999. President Clinton.
Sierra Leone Proclamation 7062
Affected Group: [M]embers of the military junta in Sierra Leone and members of their families.
Date of Proclamation, and pre ident issuing Proclamation: January 15, 1998. President Clinton.
Sierra Leone Proclamation 7359
Affected Group: [P]ersons who plan, engage in, or benefit from activities that support the Revolutionary United Front or that otherwise impede the peace process in Sierra Leone, and the spouses, children of any age, and parents of such persons.
Date ofProclamation, and pre ident is uing Proclamation: October 10, 2000. President Clinton.
Sudan Proclamation 6958
Affected Group: [M]embers ofthe Government of Sudan, officials ofthat Government, and members ofthe Sudanese armed forces.
Date of Proclamation. and president issuing Proclamation: November 22, 1996. President Clinton.
Western Balkans Proclamation 7452
Affected Group: (a) Persons who, through violent or other acts: (i) seek to obstruct the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords (the "Dayton Agreements") or United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999; (ii) seek to undermine the authority or security of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, the international security presence in Kosovo known as the Kosovo Force, the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the international security presence in Bosnia known as the Stabilization Force, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or other international organizations and entities present in the region

pursuant to the Dayton Agreement or United Nations Security Council resolutions, including but not limited to Resolutions 827, 1031, and 1244; (iii) seek to intimidate or to prevent displaced persons or refugees from returning to their places of residence in any area or state of the Western Balkans region; or (iv) otherwise seek to undermine peace, stability, reconciliation, or democratic development in any area or state of the Western Balkans region. (b) Persons who are responsible for directing, planning, or carrying out wartime atrocities, including but not limited to acts in furtherance of'' ethnic cleansing,'' committed in any area or state of the Western Balkans region since 1991.
Date of Proclamation, and president issuing Proclamation: June 27, 2001. President Bush.
Zimbabwe Proclamation 7524
Affected Group: (a) Senior members of the government of Robert Mugabe and other Zimbabwe nationals who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that undermine or injure Zimbabwe's democratic institutions or impede the transition to a multi-party democracy; (b) Persons who through their business dealings with Zimbabwe government officials derive significant financial benefit from policies that undermine or injure Zimbabwe' s democratic institutions or impede the transition to a multi-party democracy; and (c) The spouses of persons described in paragraphs (a) and (b), above.
Date of Proclamation, and president issujng Proclamation: February 22, 2002. President Bush.

=._.

0\
eft
a '

~ c:
(A
~ ..;.,

t-'

CD

•

•

•

~
~
~
~

"~ '

' N

s ~ CD CD

.....

~ ~

"'~
X
N
CD
I
~

Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 8 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 3 PageiD #: 81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X
HAMEED KHALID DARWEESH and HAIDER SAMEER ABDULKHALEQ ALSHAWI, Oil belzalfofthemselves and otlzers similarly situated,
Petitioners,

DECISION AND ORDER

-against-

17 Civ. 480 (AMD)

DONALD TRUMP, Presidellt oftl•e United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS"); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"); JOHN KELLY, Secretary ofDHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting CommissionerofCBP; JAMES T. MADDEN, New York Field Director, CBP,

Respondents. -------------------- ---------------------------------- X ANN DONNELLY, District Judge.
On January 28, 2017, the petitioners filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
IT APPEARING to the Court from the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, the other submissions, the arguments of counsel, and the hearing held on the 28th of January, 2017,
1. The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution;

AILA Doc. No. 17012801. (Posted 1/28/17)

Case 1:17-cv-00480 Document 8 Filed 01/28/17 Page 2 of 3 PageiD #: 82
2. There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable it~ury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order;
3. The issuance of the stay of removal will not injure the other parties interested in the proceeding;
4. It is appropriate and just that, pending completion of a hearing before the Court on the merits of the Petition, that the Respondents be enjoined and restrained from the commission of further acts and misconduct in violation of the Constitution as described in the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal. WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers,
agents, servants, employees, at:torneys, and all members and persons acting in conceit or participation with them, from the date of this Order, are
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas. and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set forth in this Order.
AILA Doc. No. 17012801. (Posted 1/28/17)

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 28, 2017

M. Donnelly nited States District Judge

AILA Doc. No. 17012801. (Posted 1/28/17)

 
 Case 5:17-cv-00447-JFL Document 11 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________

BASAM ABOU ASALI et al.,

:

:

Petitioners,

:

:

v.

:

:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

:

SECURITY et al.,

:

:

Respondents.

:

__________________________________________

No. 5:17-cv-00447

O R D E R
And now, this 13th day of February, 2017, following a telephone status conference held on February 8, 2017,1 during which counsel for Petitioners advised the Court that the Petitioners had been admitted to the United States, and counsel for all parties requested that the Court stay this case for a period of sixty days, during which time the parties intend to explore potential settlement options, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. This case is STAYED for a period of sixty days from the date of this Order;

2. Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 3, is DENIED without prejudice.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.___________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

1

In attendance were Joseph C. Hohenstein, counsel for Petitioners, and Joseph Anton Darrow, counsel for

Respondents.

 
 Case: 5:17-cv-00447-JFL As of: 04/12/2017 11:38 PM EDT 1 of 5
STAYED,A/R,SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:17−cv−00447−JFL

ABOU ASALI et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS") et al Assigned to: HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Petitioner

Date Filed: 01/31/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Immigration: Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

BASAM ABOU ASALI

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP THE CAST IRON BLDG STE 501 SOUTH 718 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−925−4400 Fax: 215−925−5365 Email: jfeinberg@krlawphila.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C HOHENSTEIN The Law Office Of Joseph C. Hohenstein 190 N. Independence Mall West Suite 602 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 267−405−6301 Fax: 215−925−5105 Email: joe.hohen11@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA PO BOX 60173 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−592−1513 Email: mtack−hooper@aclupa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner JOZFIN ALSHAAR

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C HOHENSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner HASSAN ABOU ASALI

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG (See above for address)

Case: 5:17-cv-00447-JFL As of: 04/12/2017 11:38 PM EDT 2 of 5

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C HOHENSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner JURJEET ABOU ASALI

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C HOHENSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner SARA ABOU ASALI

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C HOHENSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
M.A.A. A MINOR, BY HIS PARENTS, HASSAN AND JURJEET ABOU ASALI

represented by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C HOHENSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Respondent
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS")

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW US DOJ CIVIL DIVISION

Case: 5:17-cv-00447-JFL As of: 04/12/2017 11:38 PM EDT 3 of 5

POBOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202−598−2445 Email: joseph.a.darrow@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP")

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
JOHN KELLY SECRETARY OF DHS

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CBP

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
KEVIN DONOHUE PORT DIRECTOR OF THE PHILADELPHIA FIELD OFFICE OF CBP

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent JOHN DOES 1−5

represented by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
JEFFREY CUTLER TERMINATED: 02/14/2017

represented by JEFFREY CUTLER P.O. BOX 2806 YORK, PA 17405 PRO SE

Date Filed 01/31/2017

# Docket Text
1 EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against KEVIN DONOHUE, JOHN DOES 1−5, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS") ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number PPE154092), filed by M.A.A., JOZFIN ALSHAAR, JURJEET ABOU ASALI, SARA ABOU ASALI, BASAM ABOU ASALI, HASSAN ABOU ASALI. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(jmv, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

Case: 5:17-cv-00447-JFL As of: 04/12/2017 11:38 PM EDT 4 of 5

01/31/2017
01/31/2017 01/31/2017 02/01/2017 02/01/2017 02/01/2017 02/01/2017 02/03/2017 02/03/2017 02/06/2017 02/08/2017
02/08/2017 02/13/2017
02/13/2017 02/14/2017
04/04/2017

Summons Issued as to KEVIN DONOHUE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS"). Forwarded To: 7 Origs given to counsel; 1 to AUSA on 1/31/17 (jmv, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
2 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 (jmv, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
3 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY BASAM ABOU ASALI, HASSAN ABOU ASALI, JURJEET ABOU ASALI, SARA ABOU ASALI, JOZFIN ALSHAAR, M.A.A.; MEMO IN SUPPORT.(jmv, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
4 Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney Re: accepted summons and complaint on behalf of the United States Attorney (only). (jl, ) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
5 NOTICE OF HEARING CONCERNING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL IS SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 2, 2017 FROM 3:00 TO 3:30 P.M. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/2/2017 03:00 PM IN JUDGE CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON JR.. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. MOTION HEARING SET FOR 2/2/2017 03:00 PM IN JUDGE CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON JR.. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
6 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR re: A Telephone Conference was held on 2/2/17. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
7 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 2/8/2017 AT 3:00 P.M. BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON JR. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 2/3/17. 2/3/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
8 MOTION TO COMBINE CASES AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED BY JEFFREY CUTLER.(amas) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by JOSEPH ANTON DARROW on behalf of KEVIN DONOHUE, JOHN DOES 1−5, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS") with Certificate of Service(DARROW, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
10 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR re: A Telephone Conference was held on 2/8/17. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
11 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS STAYED FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; AND PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ECF NO. 3, IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 2/13/17. 2/13/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E−MAILED. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
12 EMERGENCY PETITION by JEFFREY CUTLER OF COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 PART 1)(jl, ) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
13 ORDER THAT JEFFREY CUTLER'S MOTION NO. 8 AND EMERGENCY PETITION NO. 12 ARE DENIED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE JEFFREY CUTLER FROM THIS DOCKET. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 2/14/17.2/14/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E−MAILED. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by MOLLY M. TACK−HOOPER on behalf of BASAM ABOU ASALI, HASSAN ABOU ASALI, JURJEET ABOU ASALI, SARA ABOU ASALI, JOZFIN ALSHAAR, M.A.A. with Certificate of Service(TACK−HOOPER, MOLLY) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

Case: 5:17-cv-00447-JFL As of: 04/12/2017 11:38 PM EDT 5 of 5

04/04/2017 04/12/2017

15 NOTICE of Appearance by JONATHAN H. FEINBERG on behalf of BASAM ABOU ASALI, HASSAN ABOU ASALI, JURJEET ABOU ASALI, SARA ABOU ASALI, JOZFIN ALSHAAR, M.A.A. (FEINBERG, JONATHAN) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by BASAM ABOU ASALI, HASSAN ABOU ASALI, JURJEET ABOU ASALI, SARA ABOU ASALI (HOHENSTEIN, JOSEPH) (Entered: 04/12/2017)