Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FARSHID M. ZADEH, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, MOHAMED lYE, and SAIDO A.ABDILLE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL; DANA J. BOENTE, Acting Attorney General of the United States; JOHN KELLY, Secretary ofthe Department of Homeland Security; LORI SCIALABBA, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol,

Civil Action No. COMPLAINT

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION This case seeks emergency declaratory and injunctive relief in response to President Donald Trump's unconstitutional and unlawful executive order barring entry into the United States by nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 21
Plaintiff ZADEH is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Plaintiff RAGHIMI is a citizen of Iran and holds a valid Irani passport; she is married to Plaintiff ZADEH. Plaintiff lYE is a United States Citizen and resident of the United States. Plaintiff ABDll..LE is a citizen of Somalia and holds a valid Somali passport; she is married to Plaintiff lYE. Plaintiffs ZADEH and lYE both filed 1-130 and obtained approved Petitions for alien relatives with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") with respect to Plaintiffs RAGIHMI and ABDll..LE.
After navigating and fully complying with all of the rigorous procedural requirements and security background checks that make up USCIS's petitioning process and the STATE DEPARTMENT'S visa issuance process, Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-by and through the collective actions of all other named Defendant entities and individuals acting in their official capacities, as well as their agents, servants, officers, employees and legal counselors, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction and/or command--determined that Plaintiffs do not pose a security threat to the United States. Accordingly, THE STATE DEPART~NT issued Plaintiffs RAGHIMI and ABDILLE valid immigrant visas to enter the United States. Ms. RAGHIMI obtained her visa in Ankara, Turkey on November 18,2016. Ms. ABDILLE obtained her visa on January 18,2017.
On Friday, January 27, 2017, newly elected Defendant President DONALD J. TRUMP (hereinafter referred to interchangeably as "President" and "TRUMP") signed an Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (the "Executive Order"). In the wake of the execution of the Executive
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 21
Order, Defendants have announced or have been directed to unlawfully implement a moratorium on refugees and valid visa holders from seven countries from entering the United States: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (the "seven countries"). The Executive Order is unlawful as applied to Plaintiffs, as it violates their rights under (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)); (2) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; (3) the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (4) the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500, et seq.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the relief being sought herein to redress the extreme hardship and irreparable injury that Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer because of Defendants' unlawful actions.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the following provisions: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (because questions of federal law are present); 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (Administrative -Procedure Act), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 2. This Court also has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to compel agency action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 as Plaintiffs' claims are against officers and employees of the United States and agencies thereof. 3. There are no administrative remedies available to Plaintiffs to redress their grievances described in this Complaint. This action challenges (1) Defendants'
3

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 21
procedural policies, practices, interpretations of law and their actions or failures to act; and (2) Defendants' substantive policies and practices insofar as those policies and practices violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)), the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other relevant provisions of law. This action does not challenge the mere discretionary granting or denial of individual petitions or applications. Therefore, the jurisdictional limitations under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252 do not apply.
4. Venue is proper in the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the Defendants named herein reside in the district.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs
5. Plaintiff Farshid ZADEH is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He currently resides in Minnesota. His wife, Plaintiff Sameneh RAGHIMI, was recently a Professor of Industrial Design at Azad University in Mashadd, Iran, before resigning her position to move to the United States. They have been married since November 2013. They have seen each other only intermittently since their wedding, as ZADEH lives and works in the United States and RAGHIMI had lived and worked in Iran.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 21
6. RAGIDMI petitioned for an I-130 immigrant visa. RAGIDMI'S I-130 Petition was approved. Plaintiff ZADEH was at all times relevant the husband of Plaintiff RAGIDMI-the principal beneficiary on an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.
7. RAGHIMI then underwent, adhered to and fully complied with Defendants' rigorous policies, procedures and security background checks, including but not limited to: payment of all relevant fees to USCIS, National Visa center and the State Department; providing fingerprints and biometric data to the Department of State; providing all the requisite documentation required by Defendants; and an interview of RAGHIMI at the United States Embassy in Ankara, Turkey by Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
8. Issuance by Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE of an immigrant visa to an applicant for such a visa authorizes the visa's holder to enter the United States as a lawful permanent resident, also known as a green card holder.
9. Lawful Permanent Residents have the same rights, responsibilities and protections as United States Citizens, save some exceptions, such as the right to vote in state and federal elections.
10. On November 18, 2016 Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE issued RAGHIMI an F21 immigrant visa to enter the United States as a lawful permanent resident.
11. In anticipation of beginning a new life with her husband in the United States, RAGHIMI quit her job as a professor at Azad University. She terminated her
5

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 21

housing lease, and sold her car and many of her personal belongings in preparation for

the move. 12.

ZADEH and RAGHIMI left Tehran, Iran on January 27, 2017, for the first

leg of their flight to the United States. While they were in flight, Defendant TRUMP

signed the Executive Order. When the couple landed in Amsterdam, Netherlands, a U.S. Customs or Immigration agent notified RAGHIMI that she would not be allowed to fly to the United States. ZADEH was informed, on the other hand, that he could return to the

United States. 13. Given the cost of the international tickets, and the need for ZADEH to
return to the United States so that he could complete the last requirements to make him eligible for citizenship, the couple quickly decided that ZADEH should continue on and RAGHIMI would return to Tehran alone. ZADEH and RAGHIMI rushed to make arrangements for RAGHIMI to return to Tehran before ZADEH's flight left for the United States. The couple had just a brief moment to hug and say a tearful farewell

before ZARED boarded his plane and left RAGHIMI behind.

14. Plaintiff Mohamed lYE was born in Somalia and became a U.S. citizen in

2010. He married Plaintiff Saido ABDILLE in Nairobi, Kenya, in September 2011. ABDILLE and lYE have two children together. Both children are U.S. Citizens. One child, Ni.S., was born in July 2012. The other, Na.S., was born in November 2014. Ni.S. has microcephaly and requires special medical care. ABDILLE, Ni.S., and Na.S. live

together in Nairobi, Kenya.

6

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 21

15. lYE was at all times relevant the husband of ABDILLE-the principal beneficiary on an 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative. In February 2012, lYE filed the 1-

130 Petition for ABDILLE to come to the United States on an immigrant visa.

ABDILLE'S 1-130 Petition was approved.

16. ABDILLE then underwent, adhered to and fully complied with Defendants' rigorous policies, procedures and security background checks, including but not limited to: payment of all relevant fees to USCIS, National Visa center and the State Department;

providing all the requisite documentation required by Defendants; providing fingerprints and biometric data to the Department of State; and an interview of Plaintiff ABDILLE at the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, by Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

STATE. 17.

It took almost 5 years of screening and vetting, but on January 18, 2017,

Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE issued ABDILLE an IR1 visa to enter the

United States as a lawful permanent resident. Plans were made for ABDILLE, Ni.S., and

Na.S., to leave Nairobi and join lYE in Minnesota, and a trip was booked for February 4,

2017. 18.

On January 28, 2017, in the wake of the Executive Order, ABDILLE went

to the Nairobi offices of KLM Airlines to confirm that she and her children would be

allowed to travel to the U.S. They were informed that, because of the Executive Order,

they would not be able to board their February 4, 2017 flight to Amsterdam.

19. The lease on ABDILLE's apartment terminates on February 4, 2017, and

the family has nowhere to go after that date. Neither ABDILLE nor lYE have any other 7

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 21
family living in Nairobi. The cost of a hotel will be prohibitive for the family. Further, Ni.S. desperately needs medical care for her condition. She cannot receive the care she needs in Nairobi.
20. As a result of the Executive Order and restriction on entry into the United States by ABDILLE, Defendants are refusing to allow ABDILLE to enter the United States. Defendants
21. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the sovereign entity with the power and constitutional mandate to adhere to and enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and all federal laws and regulations of the United States of America, including those provisions of the Constitution and laws and regulations of the United States herein enumerated.
22. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS") is the overarching Federal Agency of the Executive Branch of the United States Government that has been delegated the authority over, inter alia, (1) visa applications and applications to adjust status, including coordinating the timely completion of background checks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (2) immigration generally; (3) customs; and (4) border security.
23. Defendant UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES ("USCIS") is a bureau within DHS, and is the agency charged with direct and immediate responsibility for the proper and timely adjudication of visa applications and applications to adjust status.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 21
24. Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE is the Agency responsible for the international relations of the United States and consular visa processing.
25. Defendant U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL ("CBP") is the Agency responsible for enforcing United States regulations, including customs and immigration.
26. Defendant President DONALD J. TRUMP is the President of the United States of America. Defendant President TRUMP is the official of the Executive Branch of Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who possesses the authority to execute lawful executive orders, and who did in fact sign and execute the above-described Executive Order on January 27, 2017. This action is brought against Defendant TRUMP in his official capacity.
27. Defendant DANA J. BOENTE is the Acting Attorney General, and this action is brought against him in his official capacity. The Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice, which is concerned with legal affairs of the United States of America.
28. Defendant JOHN KELLY is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and this action is brought against him in his official capacity. DHS is the agency responsible for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Defendant JOHN KELLY is generally charged with the enforcement of the INA and is responsible for implementing the provisions of the INA. Defendant JOHN KELLY is further authorized to delegate such powers and authority to subordinate DHS employees. See 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a); 8 C.P.R.§ 2.1.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 21
29. Defendant LORI SCIALABBA is the Acting Director ofUSCIS, an agency within and under the purview of DHS, to which the Secretary's authority has, in part, been delegated, and this action is being brought against her in her official capacity. Defendant LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of USCIS, is subject to the Secretary's supervision. Defendant Acting Director LORI SCIALABBA is generally charged with the overall administration of immigration benefits and immigration services. See 8 C.F.R. §100.2(a).
30. Defendant KEVIN K. McALEENAN is the Acting Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Patrol and this action is being brought against him in his official capacity. The Executive Order
31. Defendant TRUMP signed the above-described Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Executive Order purports to "protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States."
32. The Executive Order is based on a purported threat of terrorism at the hands of foreign nationals, and, pursuant to the purported threat, imposes substantial modifications to the policies and procedures governing the admission of non-citizens to the United States:
a. A 120-day moratorium on the United States Refugee Resettlement Program ("US RAP");
10

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 11 of 21
b. An indefmite suspension of Syrian national refugees from entering the United States, and the substantial reduction of all refugee entrants to the United States from over 100,000 to no more than 50,000 for fiscal year 2017;
c. The 90-day suspension of "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)" (because such entry would purportedly "be detrimental to the interests of the United States"). See Executive Order§ 3(c).
33. Nations meeting the criteria listed at INA Section 217(a)(12), 8 U.S.C. Section 1187(a)(12), include the following seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (the "seven countries"). Executive Order Section 3(c) suspends entry into the United States by non-United States Citizen "immigrant[s] and nonimmigrant[s]" for 90 days.
34. The moratorium on and curtailment of refugees, as well as the freeze imposed on immigrants and nonimmigrants deriving from the seven countries from entering the United States was made by proclamation alone, and is not based on any quantitative or qualitative analysis.
35. The United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") appears to have subjected the Executive Order to only the most bare-bones (if any) review for its constitutionality. The January 27, 2017 OLC Memorandum evaluating the Executive Order is slightly more than one page in length. It catalogues the purported aims of the Executive Order and then conCludes, baldly, that "[t]he proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality."
11

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 12 of 21
36. Notwithstanding this bare-bones approval from OLC, on January 30, 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a written statement regarding the Order, which explained: "My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful. Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so."
37. TRUivfP fired Acting Attorney General Yates on January 30, 20 17, just a few hours after Yates issued the written statement criticizing the Executive Order and calling its legality into question.
38. On February 1, 2017, in response to the "reasonable uncertainty" and "confusion" regarding the scope of the Executive Order, Donald F. McGahn, Counsel to the President, issued a "Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security," which purported to provide "Authoritative Guidance" on the Executive Order.
39. McGahn's Memorandum stated: "Section 3(c) of the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Jan.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 13 of 21
27, 2017) suspends for 90 days the entry into the United States of certain aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Section 3(e) of the order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of certain foreign nationals from countries that do not provide information needed to adjudicate visas, admissions, or other benefits under the INA. I understand that there has been reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States. Accordingly, to remove any confusion, I now clarify that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to such individuals. Please immediately convey this interpretive guidance to all individuals responsible for the administration and implementation of the Executive Order."
40. In other words, individuals currently holding Green Cards are exempt from the Executive Order. Individuals holding immigrant visas, who will be eligible for and receive Green Cards simply by entering the United States pursuant to their validly issued visas, are not exempt from the Executive Order. McGahn's Memorandum lacks any rationale for distinguishing between these two groups.
41. Defendant President DONALD J. 1RUMP, both in the past and very recently, promised that as President of the United States he would ban all Muslims from entering this country. The Executive Order and concomitant proclamatory seven-country freeze has a disparate effect on Muslims. The Executive Order is based on discrimination and animus against Muslims.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 14 of 21
42. On or about December 7, 2015, Defendant, and then-presidential candidate TRUMP, referring to himself in the third person, publicly stated: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States ...."
43. TRUMP's campaign surrogate Rudolph Giuliani confirmed that the Executive Order is meant to serve as a Muslim ban, with the Order's seven-country scope acting as a fig leaf to obscure the Order's obvious unconstitutionality.
44. In a January 28, 2017 interview with Fox News, Giuliani was asked, "How did the president decide the seven countries?" He responded, "I'll tell you the whole history of it. So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " Giuliani explained that he convened a "whole group of other very expert lawyers on this," including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (RTex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger - the areas of the world that create danger for us . . . Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country."
45. The Executive Order further prioritizes admittance into the United States of religious minorities deriving from and suffering religious persecution in the seven enumerated countries. See Executive Order§§ 5(b), (e).
14

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 15 of 21
46. No similar prioritization was included in the Executive Order or otherwise announced for Muslim minorities in countries with a non-Muslim religious majority (e.g., Myanmar, Israel, China, etc.).
47. The Executive Order affords preferential treatment to Christians, while denying entry into the United States by valid visa holders or visa applicants in seven Muslim-majority countries, further demonstrating that the Order is based on religious discrimination and/or animus toward and against (a) United States Citizens pursuing family reunification with family alien relatives who are Muslim; and (b) valid United States-visa holding Muslim citizens of the seven countries.
48. TRUMP has explicitly stated that this prioritization provision of his Executive Order is for the benefit of Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries. On or about January 29, 2017, an interview between TRUMP and David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network aired. During the interview, Mr. Brody asked TRUMP whether he viewed persecuted Christians overseas as a "priority" for refugee status, to which TRUMP unequivocally replied: "Yes." See also Michael D. Shear & Helene Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of7 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).
49. The Executive Order has left Plaintiffs without any administrative options for relief. As a result, Plaintiffs have been forced to commence suit against Defendants
15

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 16 of 21
to seek an Injunction halting Defendants' enforcement of the Executive Order and/or a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to allow RAGIDMI and ABDILLE to enter the United States on their valid visas.
COUNT ONE FIFTH AMENDMENT- EQUAL PROTECTION 50. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 51. The Executive Order discriminates against Plaintiffs because of their national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection. 52. Equal Protection requires that similarly-situated individual be treated the same under the law. The Executive Order discriminates on its face. It targets exclusively residents of Muslim-majority countries while creating a gerrymandered preference for Christian minorities. Moreover, the Executive order was motivated by animus towards members of the Muslim faith and affects such members almost exclusively. As a consequence, the Executive Order violates Plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the law.
COUNT TWO FIRST AMENDMENT- ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 53. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 54. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause erects "a wall of separation between church and State." Everson v. Bd. ofEduc., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (quotation marks omitted). Its "clearest command" is "that one religious denomination cannot be
16

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 17 of 21
officially preferred over another." Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). This prohibits government action that discriminates among religions unless such action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. !d. at 246-47, 254-55; Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1130-31 (lOth Cir. 2012).
55. The Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause by creating a preference for one religion and explicitly disfavoring another. The Executive Order is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling interest; indeed, the Order was motivated by anti-Muslim animus and serves no permissible purpose whatsoever. As a result, the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause.
COUNT THREE FIFTH AMENDMENT- DUE PROCESS CLAUSE 56. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 57. All non-citizens entering the United States are entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (non-citizens must be afforded those statutory rights granted by Congress and "[m]inimum due process rights attach to statutory rights"); Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). 58. The Executive Order violates Due Process by prohibiting Plaintiffs, who have been thoroughly vetted and approved and complied with all requirements for entry under United States immigration law. The Order fails to provide even minimal
17

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 18 of 21
procedural safeguards, instead arbitrarily blocking a vast swath of visa-holders, permanent residents, and refugees on the basis of their national origin and religion.
COUNT FOUR ADMINSITRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 59. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 60. The Immigration and Nationality Act 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)(l)(A). 61. Defendants actions in preventing Plaintiffs' travel into the United States 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).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief: (1) issue an injunction and/or writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to permit Plaintiffs lawful entry into the United States pursuant to the terms of their immigrant VISas; (2) enter a judgment declaring that Defendants' refusal to admit Plaintiffs to the United States is and will be unauthorized by statute and contrary to law;
18

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 19 of 21

(3) declare that Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order are unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States;
(4) enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order; and
(5) grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.

Dated: February 3, 2017

~~::zm SELLERS & TOLL
-
Kit. A Pierson (D.C. Bar No. 398123) S. Douglas Bunch (D.C. Bar No. 974054) Sally Handma.ker (D.C. Bar No. 1005414) Julia Horwitz (D.C. Bar No. 1018561) llOONewYorkAve. NW Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 kpierson@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com shandma.ker@cohenmilstein.com jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
-and-
Adam L. Hansen (pro hac vice forthcoming) APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. 4th St. Suite 401M- 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927-2969 adam@apollo-law .com
-and-
Kevin C. Riach (pro hac vice forthcoming)
19

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 20 of 21
Benjamin R. Tozer (pro hac vice forthcoming) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 S. Sixth St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 492-7000 kriach@fredlaw .com btozer@fredlaw.com
-and-
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (pro hac vice forthcoming) Regina Jeffries (pro hac vice forthcoming) Linus Chan (pro hac vice forthcoming) CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-5515 caspeO 1O@umn.edu rjefferi@umn.edu rlchan@umn.edu
-and-
John Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER OF MINNESOTA 450 N. Syndicate St., Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 641-1011 John.Keller@ilcm.org
-and-
Sarah Brenes (pro hac vice forthcoming)
20

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 21 of 21 THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Ave. S., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-3302 sbrenes@advrigbts.org Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
21

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 2

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS44 (Rev. 7/16 DC)_
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Farshid M. Zadeh, Samaneh Raghimi, Mohamed lye, and
Saido A. Abdille

Donald J. Trump; United States of America; U.S. Dep't of
Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs; U.S. Dep't of State; U.S. Customs and Border Patrol; Dana J.

Boente; John Kelly; Lori Scialabba; Kevin K. McAieenan

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF : : c - - - - - - -
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
Kit A. Pierson
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, #500

COUNTY OF RESIDENC_J!:_~~ _FI~T _!:~~~~ ~~!~_t:!~~!~:-------

Case: 1:17-cv-00243

-
(D-Deck)

Assigned To : Chutkan, Tanya S.

Assign. Date : 2/3/2017

Washington, DC 20002 202.408.4600
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

Description: TRO/PI
-
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACEANxiNONEBOXFOR

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

0 I U S Government Plamttff

0 3 Federal Question (US Government Not a Party)

PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!

PTF

OFf

Ctttzen ofthts State

Or Or Incorporated or Princtpal Place

PTF
04

DFf
04

of Busmess m Thts State

0 2 U S Government Defendant

0 4 Dtverstty (lndtcate Cttlzenshtp of Parttes m ttem Ill)

02 02 Os os Ctttzen of Another State

Incorporated and Pnnctpal Place

Ctttzen or Subject of a Foretgn CountJY

of Busmess m Another State
03 03 Foretgn Natwn

06 06

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)

0 A. Antitrust
0 410 Antitrust

0 B. Personallnjury/
Malpractice

0 C. Administrative Agency
Review

0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product Liability 0 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 0 330 Federal Employers Liability 0340Marine 0 345 Marine Product Liability 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Injury 0 362 Medical Malpractice 0 365 Product Liability 0 367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury Product Liability 0 368 Asbestos Product Liability

0 151 Medicare Act
Social Securitv
Q 861 HIA (1395ff)
0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g)) 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 865 RSI (405(g))
0Other Statutes 891 Agricultural Acts 0 893 Environmental Matters
[K] 890 Other Statutory Actions (If
Administrative Agency is Involved)

€) D. Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction
Any nature of suit from any category may be selected for this category of case assignment.
*(If Antitrust, then A governs)*

0 E. General Civil (Other)
Real Propertv 0 210 Land Condemnation 0 220 Foreclosure 0 230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 0 240 Torts to Land 0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 290 All Other Real Property
Personal Propertv 0 370 Other Fraud 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 380 Other Personal Property
Damage 0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability

OR

0

Bankruptcy 0 422 Appea127 USC 158 0 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157

Prisoner Petitions 0 535 Death Penalty 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 555 Prison Conditions 0 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions
of Confinement

c:rrtv Rights 820 Copynghts
0830Patent 0 840 Trademark
Federal Tax Suits 0 870 Taxes (US plaintiffor
defendant) 0 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

F. ProSe General Civil
Forfeiture/Penalty 0 625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881 06900ther
Other Statutes 0375 False Claims Act 0376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a)) 0 400 State Reapportionment 0 430 Banks & Banking 0450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc. 0 460 Deportation 0462 Naturalization
Application 0465 Other Immigration
Actions

0 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organization
0 480 Consumer Credit 0 490 Cable/Satellite TV 0 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange 0 896 Arbitration 0 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 0 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes 0 890 Other Statutory Actions (if not administrative agency review or Privacy Act)
-0-

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 1-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 2

0 G. Habeas Corpus/
2255
D 530 Habeas Corpus- General D 510 MotionNacate Sentence D 463 Habeas Corpus -Alien
Detainee
0 K. Labor/ERISA
(non-employment)
D 710 Fair Labor Standards Act D 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations D 740 Labor Railway Act D 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act D 790 Otber Labor Litigation D 791 EmpL Ret Inc. Security Act

0 H. Employment
Discrimination
D 442 Civil Rigbts - Employment (criteria: race, gender/sex, national origin, discrimination, disability, age, religion, retaliation)

0 I. FOIA/Privacy Act

0 J. Student Loan

D 895 Freedom oflnformation Act D 152 Recovery of Defaulted

D 890 Otber Statutory Actions

Student Loan

(if Privacy Act)

(excluding veterans)

*(If pro se, select tbis deck)*
0 L. Other Civil Rights
(non-employment)
D 441 Voting (if not Voting Rigbts Act)
D 443 Housing/Accommodations D 440 Otber Civil Rigbts D 445 Americans w/Disabilities-
Employment D 446 Americans w/Disabilities-
Otber D 448 Education

*(If pro se, select tbis deck)*
0 M. Contract
D llO Insurance DnoMarine D 130 Miller Act D 140 Negotiable Instrument D 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment D 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Benefits D 160 Stockholder's Suits D 190 Otber Contracts D 195 Contract Product Liability D 196 Franchise

0 N. Three-Judge
Court
D 441 Civil Rigbts- Voting (if Voting Rights Act)

V. ORIGIN
0 1 Original
Proceeding

0 2Removed
from State
Court

0 3Remanded
from Appellate
Court

0 0 0 4 Reinstated 0 5 Transferred

6 Multi-district 7 Appeal to

or Reopened from another

Litigation

District Judge

district (specify)

from Mag.

Judge

0 8 Multi-district
Litigation -
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)
U.S. Constitution- First Amendment, Fifth Amendment; Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a); Administrative P

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F R C P 23

DEMAND$N/A JURY DEMAND:

Check YES only 1f demanded m complamt
YESc==] NO[l(]

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
DATE: February 3, 2017

(See mstructton)

YESD

ISIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

NO (X] / ) ./ 41"17,~~
I

If yes, please complete related case form
"""

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 Authority for Civil Cover Sbeet

The JS-44 CIVIl cover sheet and the information contamed herem neither replaces nor supplements the filmgs and services ofpleadmgs or other papers as reqUired by law, except as provided by local rules of court This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the Umted States m September 1974, IS requrred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of imt1atmg the CIVIl docket sheet Consequently, a CIVIl cover sheet IS submitted to the Clerk of Court for each CIVIl complaint filed Listed below are tips for completing the ciVIl cover sheet. These t1ps comc1de with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet

I.

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence· Use II 001 to md1cate plamtiff 1f resident

ofWashmgton, DC, 88888 If plamtlff IS resident ofUmted States but not Washmgton, DC, and 99999 ifplamtiff IS outside the Umted States

III.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES This section IS completed Q!!!y 1f d•vefSity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Junsd1ction

under SectiOn II

IV.

CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT The assignment of a Judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best

represents the~ cause of action found m your complamt You may select only one category You must also select one corresponding

nature of suit found under the category of the case

VI.

CAUSE OF ACTION C1te the US Civil Statute under which you are filing and wnte a bnef statement of the pnmary cause

VIII.

RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY If you md1cated that there IS a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from the Clerk's Office

Because of the need for accurate and complete mformatton, you should ensure the accuracy of the mformatlon provided pnor to sigmng the form

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FARSHID M. ZADEH, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, MOHAMED lYE, and SAIDO A. ABDILLE,
Plaintiffs, vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL; DANA J. BOENTE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; JOHN KELLY, Secretary ofthe Department ofHomeland Security; LORI SCIALABBA, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol,

Civil Action No.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs are two couples whose lives have been devastated by President Trump's recent Executive Order banning entry into the United States by immigrants from seven different countries. Plaintiffs have labored for years to complete the rigorous vetting and screening process necessary before the United States grants a spousal immigrant visa. They have passed all

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 23
background checks, submitted all necessary documents, and completed all necessary interviews. After this extensive review, the government issued immigrant visas to Plaintiffs Raghimi and Abdille.
Plaintiffs, who have been married but living thousands of miles apart for years, upended their lives based on the grant of these visas. Raghimi quit her job as a university professor, moved out of her apartment, and sold her car and many of her belongings before boarding a flight to the United States. She did not learn of the Executive Order purporting to ban her entry until she landed in Amsterdam to change planes, at which point she was sent back to Iran. Abdille's flight is scheduled for February 4, 2017. She has been told she will not be allowed to board the flight. She currently lives in Nairobi and cares for her and Plaintiff lye's two young daughters, ages 2 and 4. One of these little girls has a serious medical condition but is unable to get the care she needs in Nairobi. In anticipation of the move to the United States, Abdille terminated the lease on her apartment. She has no family in Nairobi. After February 4, 2017, she and the girls will have nowhere to stay.
Defendants' refusal to allow Raghimi and Abdille entrance to the United States derives from nothing more than naked prejudice. Raghimi and Abdille come from majority Muslim countries, and Defendants have sought to effectuate what is essentially a ban on Muslim immigration. Such a ban does not comport with the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint in this matter, and they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Washington, California, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York, and in each case the court concluded the plaintiffs' claims were likely to succeed. Because Plaintiffs' claims are likely to succeed, and
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 23
because plaintiffs continue to suffer irreparable harm due to Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction in this case that will: (1) restrain and enjoin Defendants from revoking or cancelling Raghimi's and Abdille's valid immigrant visas, and (2) restrain and enjoin Defendants from prohibiting Raghimi and Abdille from entering the United States pursuant to their validly issued v1sas.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
On Friday, January 27, 2017, newly elected President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (the "Executive Order"). (Complaint ~~ 31-34.) In the wake of the execution of the Executive Order, Defendants have announced or have been directed to unlawfully implement a moratorium on refugees and valid visa holders from seven countries from entering the United States: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (the "seven countries"). (Complaint
The Executive Order is based on a claimed threat of terrorism at the hands of foreign nationals, and, pursuant to the purported threat, imposes substantial modifications to the policies and procedures governing the admission of non-citizens to the United States:
a. A 120-day moratorium on the United States Refugee Resettlement Program ("US RAP");
b. An indefinite suspension of Syrian national refugees from entering the United States, and the substantial reduction of all refugee entrants to the United States from over 100,000 to no more than 50,000 for fiscal year 2017;
3

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 23
c. The 90-day suspension of "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)" (because such entry would purportedly "be detrimental to the interests of the United States"). See Executive Order§ 3(c). (Complaint, 32.)
Nations meeting the criteria listed at INA Section 217(a)(12), 8 U.S.C. Section 1187(a)(12), include the following seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (the "seven countries"). Executive Order Section 3(c) suspends entry into the United States by non-United States Citizen "immigrant[s] and nonimmigrant[s]" for 90 days. (Complaint, 33.) The moratorium on and curtailment of refugees, as well as the freeze imposed on immigrants and nonimmigrants deriving from the seven countries from entering the United States was made by proclamation alone, and is not based on any quantitative or qualitative analysis. (Complaint, 34.)
The United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") appears to have performed just a superficial review ofthe Executive Order's constitutionality. The January 27, 2017 OLC Memorandum evaluating the Executive Order is slightly more than one page in length. It catalogues the purported aims of the Executive Order and then concludes, baldly, that "[t]he proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality." (Complaint, 35.)
Notwithstanding this bare-bones approval from OLC, on January 30, 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a written statement regarding the Order:
My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent
4

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 23
with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
Trump fired Acting Attorney General Yates on January 30, 2017, just a few hours after Yates
issued this statement. (Complaint~~ 36-37.)
On February 1, 2017, in response to the "reasonable uncertainty" and "confusion"
regarding the scope of the Executive Order, Donald F. McGahn, Counsel to the President, issued
a "Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary
of Homeland Security," which purported to provide "Authoritative Guidance" on the Executive
Order. (Complaint~ 38.)
McGahn's Memorandum stated:
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Jan. 27, 2017) suspends for 90 days the entry into the United States of certain aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Section 3(e) of the order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of certain foreign nationals from countries that do not provide information needed to adjudicate visas, admissions, or other benefits under the INA. I understand that there has been reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States.
Accordingly, to remove any confusion, I now clarify that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to such individuals. Please immediately convey this interpretive guidance to all individuals responsible for the administration and implementation of the Executive Order.
(Complaint~ 39.)
5

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 23
In other words, individuals currently holding Green Cards are exempt from the Executive Order. Individuals holding immigrant visas, who will be eligible for and receive Green Cards simply by entering the United States pursuant to their validly issued immigrant visas, are not exempt from the Executive Order. McGahn's Memorandum lacks any rationale for distinguishing between these two groups. (Complaint~ 40.)
President Trump, both in the past and very recently, promised that as President of the United States he would ban all Muslims from entering this country. For example, on or about December 7, 2015, then-presidential candidate Trump, referring to himself in the third person, publicly stated: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States ...." (Complaint~ 41.)
Trump's campaign surrogate Rudolph Giuliani confirmed that the Executive Order is meant to serve as a Muslim ban. In a January 28, 2017 interview with Fox News, Giuliani was asked, "How did the president decide the seven countries?" He responded, "I'll tell you the whole history of it. So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally."' Giuliani explained that he convened a "whole group of other very expert lawyers on this," including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N. Y.). "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger - the areas of the world that create danger for us ... Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country." (Complaint~~ 43-44.)
6

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 23
The Executive Order further prioritizes admittance into the United States of religious minorities deriving from and suffering religious persecution in the seven enumerated countries. See Executive Order§§ 5(b), (e). No similar prioritization was included in the Executive Order or otherwise announced for Muslim minorities in countries with a non-Muslim religious majority (e.g., Myanmar, Israel, China, etc.). (Complaint ,-r,-r 44-47.)
President Trump has explicitly stated that this prioritization provision of his Executive Order is for the benefit of Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries. On or about January 29, 2017, an interview between Trump and David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network aired. During the interview, Mr. Brody asked Trump whether he viewed persecuted Christians overseas as a "priority" for refugee status, to which Trump unequivocally replied: "Yes." See also 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 ofRefugees, Promises Priority for Christians, Wash. Post (Jan. 27, 2017). (Complaint ,-r 48.) II. PLAINTIFFS ZADEH AND RAGHIMI
Plaintiff Zadeh is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and is just several months away from being eligible for citizenship. (Complaint ,-r 5.) His wife, Sameneh Raghimi, was until recently a Professor of Industrial Design at Azad University in Mashadd, Iran, before resigning her position to move to the United States. (Complaint ,-r 5.) They have been married since November 2013. (Complaint ,-r 5.) They have seen each other only intermittently since their wedding, as Zadeh lives and works in the United States and Raghimi lives and works in
7

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 23
Iran. (Complaint ~ 5.) After they married in 2013, Zadeh filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on Raghimi's behalf. The I-130 Petition was approved. (Complaint~ 6.)
Raghimi then underwent, adhered to and fully complied with Defendants' policies, procedures and security background checks, including but not limited to: payment of all relevant fees to USCIS, National Visa center and the State Department; providing all the requisite documentation required by Defendants; and an interview of Raghimi at the United States Embassy in Ankara, Turkey by the U.S. Department of State. (Complaint~ 7.)
On November 18, 2016, the Department of State issued Raghimi an F21 immigrant visa to enter the United States as a lawful permanent resident. (Complaint ~ 10.) In anticipation of beginning a new life with her husband in the United States, Raghimi quit her job as a professor at Azad University. (Complaint~ 11.) She terminated her lease and sold her car and many of her personal belongings in preparation for the move. (Complaint~ 11.)
Zadeh and Raghimi left Tehran, Iran on January 27, 2017, for the first leg of their flight to the United States. While they were in the air, Trump signed the Executive Order. When the couple landed in Amsterdam, Netherlands, a U.S. Customs or Immigration agent notified Raghimi that she would not be allowed to fly to the United States. Zadeh was informed, on the other hand, that he could return to the United States. (Complaint~ 12.)
Given the cost of the international tickets, and the need for Zadeh to return to the United States so that he could complete the last requirements to make him eligible for citizenship, the couple quickly decided that Zadeh should continue on and Raghimi would return to Tehran alone. Zadeh and Raghimi rushed to make arrangements for Raghimi to return to Tehran before Zadeh's flight left for the United States. The couple had just a brief moment to hug and say a tearful farewell before Zadeh boarded his plane and left Raghimi behind. (Complaint~ 13.)
8

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 23
Zadeh's and Raghimi's continued separation has been painful for the couple. Beyond the emotional consequences of the separation, the financial burden has been substantial. Raghimi resigned from her job at Azad University and currently has no employment. She cancelled the lease on her apartment and now has nowhere to stay. She is currently living in a hotel. She sold her car and all her personal belongings. She has nothing except the luggage she was traveling with, and some of her luggage, including her computer and some of her clothes, ended up in Minneapolis with Zadeh. Raghimi has no family in Tehran to help her during this time. III. PLAINTIFFS lYE AND ABDILLE
lye was born in Somalia and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2010. He married Abdille in Nairobi, Kenya, in September 2011. Abdille and lye have two daughters together. Both children are U.S. Citizens. One child, Nimo, was born in July 2012. The other, Nafisa, was born in November 2014. Nimo has microcephaly and requires special medical care. Abdille, Nimo, and Nafisa live together in Nairobi, Kenya. (Complaint ,-r 14.)
In February, 2012, lye filed an 1-130 Petition for Abdille to come to the United States on an immigrant visa. Abdille's 1-130 Petition was approved. Abdille then underwent, adhered to and fully complied with Defendants' policies, procedures and security background checks, including but not limited to: payment of all relevant fees to USCIS, National Visa center and the State Department; providing all the requisite documentation required by Defendants; and an interview of Plaintiff Abdille at the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, by the U.S. Department of State. (Complaint ,-r,-r 15-16.)
It took almost 5 years of screening and vetting, but on January 18, 2017, the State Department issued Abdille an IR1 visa to enter the United States as a lawful permanent resident.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 23
Plans were made for Abdille, Nimo, and Nafisa, to leave Nairobi and join lye in Minnesota, and a trip was booked for February 4, 2017. (Complaint~ 17.)
On January 28, 2017, in the wake of the Executive Order, Abdille went to the Nairobi offices of KLM Airlines to confirm that she and her children would be allowed to travel to the U.S. They were informed that, because of the Executive Order, they would not be able to board their February 4, 2017 flight to Amsterdam. (Complaint~ 18.)
The lease on Abdille's apartment terminates on February 4, 2017, and the family has nowhere to go after that date. Neither Abdille nor lye have any other family living in Nairobi. The cost of a hotel will be prohibitive for the family. Further, Nimo desperately needs medical care for her condition. She cannot receive the care she needs in Nairobi. (Complaint~ 19.)
MOTION Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 65 and LCvR 65.1, Plaintiffs hereby the move the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction enjoinin~ Defendants from enforcement of the Executive Order and allowing Raghimi and Abdille to enter the United States on their valid visas. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs rely on the points and authorities described in the argument below.
ARGUMENT I. Standard for Granting Temporary Relief.
To obtain a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must establish (1) that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm is likely in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs' favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 223 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2737 (2015), reh'g denied, 136 S. Ct. 20 (2015)); see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A district court must balance
10

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 11 of 23
the strengths of the requesting party's arguments in each of the four required areas. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office ofThrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). "If the showing in one area is particularly strong, an injunction may issue even if the showings in other areas are rather weak." ld. Therefore, while Plaintiffs' claim on the merits is strong, temporary relief ought to be granted even if the arguments were less meritorious given how strongly the balance of harms weighs in Plaintiffs' favor, and vice versa. II. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on the Merits Because the Executive Order Is Illegal
for Several Reasons. The Executive Order violates several provisions of the Constitution and federal statutes. It is so plainly illegal that 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/20 17/0113 0/us/document- Letter-From-SallyYates.html. Therefore, Plaintiffs are very likely to prevail on the merits. A. The Executive Order Violates the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs claim a violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, on the ground that the Executive Order constitutes intentional discrimination by the federal government on the basis of religion and national origin. "Classifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny." Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365,372 (1971). While the political branches may have more latitude in an immigration context (see, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001)) the United States does not set aside its values or its Constitution while protecting its borders. See INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919, 941-42 (Congress must choose a "constitutionally permissible means of implementing" its power over
11

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 12 of 23
immigration). Religion is also an "inherently suspect distinction." See City ofNew Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976). In this case, the Executive Order is at odds with the fundamental American promise that all are entitled to equal protection under the law.
The Executive Order, on its face, discriminates based on national origin without any sufficient and reasonable justification. Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, the Executive Order discriminates based on religion. On its face, the Executive Order requires immigration officials 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." As detailed above, comments by President Trump and his advisers make clear that the intent of this provision is to give preference to Christians while disadvantaging Muslims. Plaintiffs need not show that the intent to discriminate against Muslims "was the sole purpose of the challenged action, but only that it was a 'motivating factor."' See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66 (1977). There can be no dispute that the executive order uses suspect classifications. And it does so not in furtherance of a congressionally-authorized purpose, but rather in direct violation of federal law, as discussed further below. Thus, the Court ought to apply strict scrutiny. The Executive Order cannot withstand strict scrutiny.
The Executive Order cites three rationales to support its temporary ban on admission of nationals of seven countries: "To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies . . . , 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." The first rational~ssentially a desire to conserve resources
12

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 13 of 23
by discriminating-is not compelling. The Executive Order is not narrowly tailored to achieve any ofthese goals.
The Executive Order is profoundly overbroad. It bans those from disfavored countries without any evidence that any individual poses a threat of terrorism. Additionally, while the Executive Order recites the tragic events of September 11, 2001, it imposes no entry restrictions on people from the countries whose nationals carried out those attacks (Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). Strict scrutiny requires a "perfect fit between the means and the ends ...." Turner Broadcasting v. F. C. C., 910 F. Supp. 734, 747 (D.D.C. 1995). Here, there is no "fit" between the rationales advanced to support the Executive Order and the means used to further those rationales.
Moreover, the Executive Order was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and has a discriminatory effect on followers of the Muslim faith, including citizens of the United States. A law that is discriminatory in its purpose violates the Constitution's Equal Protection command. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976); Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. 252. Courts can infer discriminatory purpose from the "impact of the official action," Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, and the "historical background of the decision." /d. at 267. Here, the evidence of discriminatory purpose is overwhelming. President Trump campaigned on the explicit promise of implementing a "Muslim ban." Rudolph Giuliani revealed in media appearances that the Executive order was crafted to effectuate just such a ban. A high ranking Justice Department official declined to enforce the Order because of its discriminatory origins. And the Order itself disadvantages Muslims nearly exclusively while creating a gerrymandered exception for Christians.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 14 of 23
Plaintiffs can show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Equal Protection claim.
B. The Executive Order Violates the Establishment Clause. "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). Thus, where a law "grant[s] a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality." /d. at 246. In Larson, the law at issue did not mention any religious denomination by name, but drew a distinction between religious groups based on the percentage of their revenue received from nonmembers, which had the effect of harming certain religious groups. /d. at 231-32. Because the law was focused on religious entities and had the effect of distinguishing between them in a way that favored some, the Court applied strict scrutiny. /d. at 246-47. These same principles apply where, as here the law attempts to use neutral language to systematically disadvantage members of the targeted religion. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). As described above, the Executive Order was designed in a poor attempt to create a "legal" Muslim Ban. The rhetoric used surrounding the Muslim Ban, the Executive Order's exception for Christian minorities, and the disparate impact on both Muslim visa holders and their legal permanent resident family members show that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits. C. The Executive Order Violates Due Process. Due Process requires that arriving immigrants be afforded those statutory rights granted by Congress and minimum due process rights attach to statutory rights. Diah v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003). In particular, those with valid immigrant visas (who will become
14

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 15 of 23
lawful permanent residents upon arrival) entering the United States have constitutional due process rights with respect to their entry. The Fifth Amendment protects all persons who have entered the United States "from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 69, 77 (1976) (internal citation omitted). This protection applies to all persons within our borders, regardless of immigration status. ld. (Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment extends even to those "whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory"); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The denial of entry of valid visaholders, without an opportunity to be heard, is a prima facie violation of those due process principles. The Executive Order provides that all individuals from the impacted countries be denied entry to the United States, irrespective of their immigration status. On its face, the Order bars legal permanent residents from impacted countries from reentry into the United States if they travel aboard. The de facto travel ban denies Plaintiffs the right to connect with their families, "a right that ranks high among the interests of the individual." See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958). The denial of entry to all persons from the seven affected countries, irrespective of immigration status, and resulting travel ban violate the due process rights of legal permanent residents and visaholders.
D. The Executive Order Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Plaintiffs are likely to establish that the Executive Order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Enacted in 1965, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(l)(A) states, "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." By suspending entry of immigrants holding legal visas from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, for 90 days, the Executive Order violates the INA. While the INA refers only to discrimination in the issuance of an immigrant visa the statute would be rendered meaningless
15

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 16 of 23
if it did not equally prohibit denials of an immigrant's entry into the country altogether. See Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep 't of State, 45 F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (holding that Congress, in enacting Section 1152, "unambiguously directed that no nationality-based discrimination shall occur") Gudgement vacated on other grounds in US. Department ofState v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, 117 S. Ct. 378 (1996)).
Defendants may argue that the President has power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens when their entry is detrimental to the interests of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Section 1182, however, was enacted in 1952, nearly a decade before Section 1152. The enactment of the INA in 1965, including Section 1152, marked a "profound change" in the law by abolishing the national origin quota system, establishing a uniform quota system, and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31, 37 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing Pub. L. No. 89-236). Passed alongside the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voti~g Rights Act of 1965, the legislative history ofthe INA "is replete with the bold anti-discriminatory principles of the Civil Rights Era." Olsen, 990 F. Supp. at 37. It is inconceivable that, in enacting anti-discrimination provisions in 1965, Congress intended to leave the President with the ability to adopt the same sort of overtly discriminatory measures Congress was outlawing. In addition, this interpretation would render Section 1152 a nullity, as the President could waive it at any time for any reason. See Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, 45 F.3d at 473. Under Plaintiffs' proposed interpretation, however, the statutes can be read together and both serve a purpose. The President can still bar certain classes of aliens from the United States-just not based on those classes provided in Section 1182.
E. The Executive Order Violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Defendants actions 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
16

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 17 of 23
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 13 determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action." /d. § 706 (emphasis added).
Defendants actions were based solely pursuant to the Executive Order, which expressly discriminates against Plaintiff 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, as outlined above. The Executive Order 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, as discussed above, 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)(l)(A). As set forth above, Defendants' actions also violated procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which
17

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 18 of 23
therefore 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' 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' 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. !d. 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 immigrants like Plaintiffs who have already been seriously vetted for several years, and the relative risk presented by those arriving on different visa categories. III. Plaintiffs Are Suffering and Will Continue to Suffer Irreparable Harm Due to the
Executive Order. An irreparable injury "must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical." Wise. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Additionally, the injury must be beyond monetary remediation. Chaplaincy ofFull Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297-98 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Wise. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674.) A party need not show, however, that "rigor mortis will set in forthwith" absent the requested relief. See Massachusetts Law Reform Inst. v. Legal Services Corp., 581 F. Supp. 1179, 1188 (D.D.C. 1984) (internal citations omitted).
18

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 19 of 23
First, because Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their Establishment Clause claim, harm is presumed. See Chaplaincy ofFull Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("[W]here a movant alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause, this is sufficient, without more, to satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purposes of the preliminary injunction determination."). Second, Raghimi and Abdille planned travel to the United States, and upended their lives in their home countries, 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. They paid fees and went through a years-long vetting process. Yet now, so close to being united as families, they have ~een turned away, and are bearing significant emotional and financial costs sustaining the separation they believed was coming to an end. Additionally, Nimo, child of Plaintiffs lye and Abdille, desperately needs medical care that she cannot receive promptly without grant of immediate injunctive relief. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if immediate injunctive relief does not issue. IV. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Favor Relief Now.
After concluding that Plaintiffs satisfy the first two factors, the traditional stay inquiry then calls for assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). The last two stay factors, considering the impact of the stay on the other party and considering the public interest, merge in immigration cases beca~se the Respondent is both the opposing litigant and the public interest representative. Id. As noted in Nken, "there is a public interest in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm." ld. at 436. While Nken notes that the public's interest in "prompt execution of removal orders" is greater where "the alien is
19

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 20 of 23
particularly dangerous" or "has substantially prolonged his stay by abusing the process provided to him," neither of those concerns are present in this case. !d.
In this case, the balance tips sharply in favor of Plaintiffs. The balance of equities and public interest always favor "prevent[ing] the violation of a party's constitutional rights." Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitte~). Plaintiffs face substantially unstable situations away from the United States. There is not 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 Executive Order and the humanitarian interests in l.mifying the family, an injunction is also in the public interest. V. Every District Court That Has Addressed Similar Issues Has Issued Injunctive
Relief. Several similar cases have been filed around the Country in the last week. Counsel has not reviewed all of them in depth-more than fifty cases have been filed. But in every action that Counsel is aware of where a court has made similar considerations, the court has come to the same conclusion and has issued a temporary restraining order. See Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480 (E.D.N.Y filed Jan. 28, 2017) (enjoining, nationwide, defendants from removing individuals with approved refugee applications, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and any other individuals legally authorized to enter the United States.); see also Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. filed Jan. 29, 2017); see also Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 28, 2017) (similar injunction, but limited to the Dulles International Airport.); see also Mohammed v. Trump, No. CV 17-00786 (C.D. Ca. filed Jan. 31, 2017) (enjoining defendants, nationwide, from removing, detaining, or blocking the entry of persons with a valid immigrant visa.); see also Doe v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00126 (W.D. Wash. filed Jan. 28, 2017) (enjoining respondents from removing the petitioners); see also Arab
20

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 21 of 23

American Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 17-10310 (E.D. Mich. filed Feb. 3, 2017) (permanently enjoining application of the Executive Order against lawful permanent residents of the United States.).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order.

Dated: February 3, 2017

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PL~-
K.itAPiefSOil{DE.o~23)
S. Douglas Bunch (D.C. Bar No. 974054) Sally Handmaker (D.C. Bar No. 1005414) Julia Horwitz (D.C. Bar No. 1018561) 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 kpierson@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
-and-
Adam L. Hansen (pro hac vice forthcoming) APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. 4th St. Suite 401M- 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927-2969 adam@apollo-law .com
-and-

21

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 22 of 23
Kevin C. Riach (pro hac vice forthcoming) Benjamin R. Tozer (pro hac vice forthcoming) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 S. Sixth St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 492-7000 kriach@fredlaw .com btozer@fredlaw .com
-and-
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (pro hac vice forthcoming) Regina Jeffries (pro hac vice forthcoming) Linus Chan (pro hac vice forthcoming) CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-5515 caspeO 1O@umn.edu rjefferi@umn.edu rlchan@urnn.edu
-and-
John Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER OF MINNESOTA 450 N. Syndicate St., Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 641-1011 John.Keller@ilcm.org
-and-
22

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 23 of 23 Sarah Brenes (pro hac vice forthcoming)
THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Ave. S., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-3302 sbrenes@advrights.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FARSHID M. ZADEH, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, MOHAMED lYE, and SAIDO A. ABDILLE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD J. TRU1\1P, President ofthe United States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL; DANA J. BOENTE, Acting Attorney General of the United States; JOHN KELLY, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; LORI SCIALABBA, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol,

Civil Action No.
CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES REGARDING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiffs hereby certify that actual notice of, and copies of, all pleadings and papers filed in this action to date or to be presented to the Court at the hearing, including copies of Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, are being provided to the adverse parties contemporaneous with this filing.

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 3

Dated: February 3, 2017

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Kit. Pierson .C. Bar No. 398123) S. Douglas Bunch (D.C. Bar No. 974054) Sally Handmaker (D.C. Bar No. 1005414) Julia Horwitz (D.C. Bar No. 1018561) 1100NewYorkAve. NW Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 kpierson@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
-and-
Adam L. Hansen (pro hac vice forthcoming) APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. 4th St. Suite 401M- 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927-2969 adam@apollo-law.com
-and-
Kevin C. Riach (pro hac vice forthcoming) Benjamin R. Tozer (pro hac vice forthcoming) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 S. Sixth St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 492-7000 kriach@fredlaw.com btozer@fredlaw.com
-and-
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (pro hac vice forthcoming)
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 3
Regina Jeffries (pro hac vice forthcoming) Linus Chan (pro hac vice forthcoming) CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-5515
caspeOIO~unuLedu
rjefferi@umn.edu rlchan@umn.edu
-and-
John Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER OF MINNESOTA 450 N. Syndicate St., Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 641-1011 John.Keller@ilcm.org
-and-
Sarah Brenes (pro hac vice forthcoming) THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Ave. S., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-3302 sbrenes@advrights.org
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
3

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FARSHID M. ZADEH, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, MOHAMED lYE, and SAIDO A. ABDILLE,
Plaintiffs, vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL; DANA J. BOENTE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; JOHN KELLY, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; LORI SCIALABBA, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol,

Civil Action No.
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER This matter came before the Court on a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order brought by Plaintiffs. The Court has considered the motion and documents filed therewith, including Plaintiffs' Complaint seeking injunctive relief and/or a writ of mandamus, and the arguments of counsel provided at an emergency hearing held __, at _ _ _ a.m./p.m.

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 3
Having considered the foregoing, the Court hereby enters the following finds of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiffs face an immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order by Defendant President Donald J. Trump on January 27, 2017. These injuries are ongoing and significant. 2. The claims in Plaintiffs' complaint are likely to succeed on the merits. 3. A temporary restraining order against Defendants, as provided below, is necessary until a determination ofthe merits of Plaintiffs' claims can be held.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter of this action. 5. Plaintiffs' efforts to contact Defendants reasonably and substantially complied with the requirements ofFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(b) and LCvR 65.1 . 6. The Court deems no security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). 7. To obtain a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must establish (1) that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm is likely in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs' favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 223 (D.D.C. 2016). 8. Based on the Findings of Fact set forth above, there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims and irreparable injury is likely if the requested restraining order is not issued.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 2-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 3

9. The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiffs and the public interest weighs in

favor of entering temporary relief.

Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and

persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby fully ENJOINED AND

RESTRAINED from enforcing Defendant President Donald J. Trump's January 27, 2017

Executive Order by removing, detaining, or blocking the entry of Plaintiffs to the United States;

2. Defendants and Defendant United States Department of State in particular, are

hereby ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from cancelling validly obtained and disused

immigrant visas of Plaintiffs;

3. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY inform all relevant

airport, airline, and other authorities that Plaintiffs are permitted to travel to the United States on

their valid imniigrant visas; and

4. Defendants shall remain enjoined until an expedited hearing can be held at __

a.m./p.m. on_ day of _ _ 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZADEH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00243-TSC
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED IN 17-CV00786 (C.D. CAL. JAN. 31, 2017) AND 2:17-CV-0141 (W.D. WASH. FEB. 3, 2017)

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs submit this supplemental memorandum in support of their Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to address the applicability of the orders recently issued in Mohammed v. United States, No. 17-cv-00786, Dkt. 7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017), and Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141, Dkt. 52 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). These court orders apply to Plaintiffs here and together forbid enforcement of the Executive Order against Plaintiffs as they attempt to enter the United States. For that reason, this Court should briefly defer ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion while Plaintiffs attempt to travel to the United States. However, lingering questions related to the applicability of the Mohammed and Washington orders remain. The orders are temporary in nature, and the government has appealed in Washington. The orders may be narrowed in scope or overturned entirely. For these reasons, the Court should proceed with the scheduled hearing on Monday. In the event that the Mohammed and Washington orders fail to provide safe passage to the United States for Plaintiffs, the Court should promptly rule on— and grant—Plaintiffs’ motion.

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND On January 31, 2017, the court in Mohammed entered a temporary restraining order barring the enforcement of the Executive Order and prohibiting “removing, detaining, or blocking the entry of Plaintiffs, or any other person from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with a valid immigrant visa.” Mohammed, No. 17-cv-00786, Dkt. 7 at 5. The court ordered other relief, but limited the scope of that relief to the plaintiffs in that case. For example, the court enjoined and restrained the defendants “from cancelling validly obtained and issued immigrant visas of Plaintiffs.” Id. But foreign travelers soon discovered an additional problem not addressed by the Mohammed order (except as to the plaintiffs in that case). At the same time that President Trump issued the Executive Order, the U.S. Department of State issued a memorandum revoking “all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen,” subject to limited exceptions not relevant here. See State Dept. Memo attached as Exhibit A. The State Department memorandum was particularly egregious because it ventured beyond the terms of the Executive Order itself, which purported to merely “suspend entry” of persons from the seven countries identified for 90 days—not cancel validly obtained visas that in many cases took years to obtain. Executive Order § 3(c). In the wake of the State Department memorandum, affected persons could not practically rely on the Mohammed order because the order applied only to those “with a valid immigrant visa.” Mohammed, No. 17-cv-00786, Dkt. 7 at 5. During a hearing in a pending Virginia action, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney estimated that 100,000 visas had been canceled pursuant to the State Department memo. See Aziz v. Trump, 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va.); see also https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-100000-visasrevoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 3 of 8
Late yesterday, February 3, shortly after this action was filed, the court in Washington granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined the defendants from enforcing the Executive Order nationwide. See Washington, No. 2:17-cv-00141, Dkt. 52. Today, the State Department reversed the earlier visa revocations in light of the Court’s order in Washington. See https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en.html; https://www.washingtonpost. com/politics/state-dept-reverses-visa-revocations-allows-banned-travelers-to-enter-us/2017/02/0 4/0ab5880a-eaee-11e6-bf6f 301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.074122aa42a2. Late today, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in Washington.
In light of these developments, Plaintiffs have renewed their efforts to travel to the United States. Plaintiff Abdille departed from Nairobi to Amsterdam at approximately 3 p.m. EST today, February 4. She is scheduled to board a flight to Minneapolis early tomorrow and land at 1 p.m. EST tomorrow, February 5, 2017. Plaintiff Raghimi has purchased a ticket to depart Tehran for Amsterdam at 6:50 p.m. EST on Sunday, February 5. She departs Amsterdam at 4:35 a.m. EST on Monday, February 6, and is scheduled to land in Minneapolis at 1:52 p.m. EST on Monday February 6.
ARGUMENT The orders in Mohammed and Washington cover Plaintiffs here. Even assuming the Mohammed order was insufficient to prevent the revocation of Plaintiffs’ visas, the court in Washington explicitly issued its order on a nationwide basis. And the State Department has since explicitly reaffirmed that Plaintiffs’ visas remain valid. The Mohammed and Washington orders are binding both on Defendants and on this Court. See National Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (injunctions issued against an agency are valid on a national basis); United States v. AMC Entm’t, Inc., 549 F.3d 760, 770 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Once a court has obtained personal jurisdiction
3

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 4 of 8
over a defendant, the court has the power to enforce the terms of the injunction outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, including issuing a nationwide injunction.”).
However, questions remain as to whether the Mohammed and Washington orders will allow Plaintiffs to enter the United States. The orders are necessarily temporary in nature, and the courts in Mohammed and Washington will refine their orders at the preliminary injunction stage. Moreover, the government has appealed the Washington order. Because both Mohammed and Washington arose in the Ninth Circuit, an appeal in one case will likely affect the other. The outcome of Ninth Circuit review is, of course, uncertain. The court could narrow the scope of the existing orders or overturn them entirely. Finally, this past week has been marked by a great deal of chaos in the enforcement of the Executive Order itself and the court orders it has generated. Enforcement has varied from office to office, and even agent to agent.
For these reasons, the Court should proceed with the scheduled hearing on Monday. Plaintiffs will provide the Court with up-to-date information about Plaintiffs’ progress in traveling to and entering the United States. In the event that Plaintiffs are admitted to the United States pursuant to the terms of their visas, Plaintiffs will immediately inform the Court, and meet and confer with the Department of Justice attorneys in order to resolve this case.
However, in the event that the Mohammed and Washington orders fail to grant Plaintiffs entry to the United States, the Court should promptly rule on—and grant—Plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons stated therein.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should defer ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion while Plaintiffs attempt to enter the United States under the terms of the Mohammed and Washington orders. If Plaintiffs cannot enter, the Court should promptly grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 5 of 8

Dated: February 4, 2017

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
/s/ S. Douglas Bunch Kit A. Pierson (D.C. Bar No. 398123) S. Douglas Bunch (D.C. Bar No. 974054) Sally Handmaker (D.C. Bar No. 1005414) Julia Horwitz (D.C. Bar No. 1018561) 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 kpierson@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Adam L. Hansen (pro hac vice forthcoming) APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. 4th St. Suite 401M - 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927-2969 adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
Kevin C. Riach (pro hac vice forthcoming) Benjamin R. Tozer (pro hac vice forthcoming) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 S. Sixth St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 492-7000 kriach@fredlaw.com btozer@fredlaw.com
5

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 6 of 8
- and -
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (pro hac vice forthcoming) Regina Jeffries (pro hac vice forthcoming) Linus Chan (pro hac vice forthcoming) CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-5515 caspe010@umn.edu rjefferi@umn.edu rlchan@umn.edu
- and -
John Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER OF MINNESOTA 450 N. Syndicate St., Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 641-1011 John.Keller@ilcm.org
- and -
Sarah Brenes (pro hac vice forthcoming) THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Ave. S., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-3302 sbrenes@advrights.org
- and -
Abdinasir M. Abdulahi (pro hac vice forthcoming)
6

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 7 of 8
AMA LAW GROUP, PLLC 1113 E. Franklin Ave, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 871-1110 abdi@amalawgroup.com - and Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 434 Washington, DC 20008 (202) 457-0800 aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5 Filed 02/04/17 Page 8 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on this 4th day of February 2017, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all parties and counsel in this case.
/s/ S. Douglas Bunch
S. Douglas Bunch
8

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5-1 Filed 02/04/17 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 5-1 Filed 02/04/17 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 19 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZADEH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00243-TSC
JOINT STATEMENT AND STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

At approximately 2:25 p.m. EST on February 6, 2017, Plaintiff Samaneh Raghimi cleared customs and immigration at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. She is now a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
In light of this development and in light of Plaintiff Saido Abdille’s entry into the United States on February 5, see Dkt. 14, the parties hereby stipulate to the withdrawal of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on February 3, 2017 (Dkt. 2.).

Dated: February 7, 2017

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
/s/ S. Douglas Bunch Kit A. Pierson (D.C. Bar No. 398123) S. Douglas Bunch (D.C. Bar No. 974054) Sally Handmaker (D.C. Bar No. 1005414) Julia Horwitz (D.C. Bar No. 1018561) 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 kpierson@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 19 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 5
- and -
Adam L. Hansen (admitted pro hac vice) APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. 4th St. Suite 401M - 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927-2969 adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
Kevin C. Riach (admitted pro hac vice) Benjamin R. Tozer (pro hac vice forthcoming) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 S. Sixth St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 492-7000 kriach@fredlaw.com btozer@fredlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (pro hac vice forthcoming) Regina Jeffries (admitted pro hac vice) Linus Chan (pro hac vice forthcoming) CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-5515 caspe010@umn.edu rjefferi@umn.edu rlchan@umn.edu
- and -
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 19 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 5
John Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER OF MINNESOTA 450 N. Syndicate St., Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 641-1011 John.Keller@ilcm.org
- and -
Sarah Brenes (pro hac vice forthcoming) THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Ave. S., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-3302 sbrenes@advrights.org
- and -
Abdinasir M. Abdulahi (pro hac vice forthcoming) AMA LAW GROUP, PLLC 1113 E. Franklin Ave, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 871-1110 abdi@amalawgroup.com
- and -
Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 434 Washington, DC 20008 (202) 457-0800 aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 19 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 5
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director COLIN A. KISOR Deputy Director J. MAX WEINTRAUB Senior Litigation Counsel ELIANIS N. PÉREZ Senior Litigation Counsel /s/ Joshua S. Press JOSHUA S. PRESS Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 898, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202.305.0106 | Fax: 202.305.7000 joshua.press@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
4

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 19 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on this 7th day of February 2017, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all parties and counsel in this case.
/s/ S. Douglas Bunch
S. Douglas Bunch
5

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 14 Filed 02/05/17 Page 1 of 1

February 5, 2017

Predrieson lmr: & BYRON, P.A.

The Honorable Tanya S. Chutkan U.S. District Judge U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington D.C., 20001
Re: Zadeh, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No.1: 17-cv-00243
Dear Judge Chutkan:
This letter is to update the Court on Plaintiffs' travel and immigration status. This afternoon, Plaintiff Saido Abdille landed at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and was allowed to enter the United States. She is now classified as a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
At approximately 7:00 p.m. EDT, Plaintiff Samaneh Raghimi was allowed to board a KLM flight to Amsterdam, Netherlands, for the first leg of her flight to Minneapolis, Minnesota. She is currently scheduled to arrive in Minneapolis on February 6, 2017, at 12:50 p.m. CDT. Counsel for Plaintiffs suggest that the parties and the Court conduct a conference call tomorrow morning to discuss whether the Court wants to proceed with tomorrow's hearing. By tomorrow morning, Counsel should have more information regarding whether or not Ms. Raghimi has been allowed to board her flight to the United States.
This letter is being electronically filed, and the parties will be served via PACER.
Sincerely,
?,~
Kevin C. Riach
Direct Dial: 612.492.7435 Email: kriach@fredlaw.com

Attorneys & Advisors main 612.492.7000 fax 612.492.7077 www.fredlaw.com

Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.

200 South Sixth Street, Suite

Minneapolis,

Minnesota

55402-1425

4000

MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERVICES GROUP A Worldwide Network of Professional Service Providers

OFFICES Minneapolis

/ Bismarck / Des Moines / Fargo / Monterrey, Mexico / Shanghai

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 32 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZADEH, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. TRUMP, et al.,

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00243-TSC
STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP 41(a)

Defendants.

The parties have reached a resolution to this case that requires no further judicial involvement. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to a dismissal of this action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party responsible for its own fees and costs.

Dated: March 8, 2017

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
/s/ S. Douglas Bunch Kit A. Pierson (D.C. Bar No. 398123) S. Douglas Bunch (D.C. Bar No. 974054) Sally Handmaker (D.C. Bar No. 1005414) Julia Horwitz (D.C. Bar No. 1018561) 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600 kpierson@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com
- and -

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 32 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 5
Adam L. Hansen (admitted pro hac vice) APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. 4th St. Suite 401M - 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927-2969 adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
Kevin C. Riach (admitted pro hac vice) Benjamin R. Tozer (pro hac vice forthcoming) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 S. Sixth St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 492-7000 kriach@fredlaw.com btozer@fredlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (admitted pro hac vice) Regina Jeffries (admitted pro hac vice) Linus Chan (admitted pro hac vice) CENTER FOR NEW AMERICANS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625-5515 caspe010@umn.edu rjefferi@umn.edu rlchan@umn.edu
- and -
2

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 32 Filed 03/08/17 Page 3 of 5
John Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) IMMIGRANT LAW CENTER OF MINNESOTA 450 N. Syndicate St., Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 641-1011 John.Keller@ilcm.org
- and -
Sarah Brenes (admitted pro hac vice) THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Ave. S., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341-3302 sbrenes@advrights.org
- and -
Abdinasir M. Abdulahi (admitted pro hac vice) AMA LAW GROUP, PLLC 1113 E. Franklin Ave, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 871-1110 abdi@amalawgroup.com
- and –
Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4301 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 434 Washington, DC 20008 (202) 457-0800 aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 32 Filed 03/08/17 Page 4 of 5
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director COLIN A. KISOR Deputy Director J. MAX WEINTRAUB Senior Litigation Counsel ELIANIS N. PÉREZ Senior Litigation Counsel /s/ Joshua S. Press JOSHUA S. PRESS Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 898, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202.305.0106 | Fax: 202.305.7000 joshua.press@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
4

Case 1:17-cv-00243-TSC Document 32 Filed 03/08/17 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on this 8th day of March 2017, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all parties and counsel in this case.
/s/ Joshua S. Press JOSHUA S. PRESS Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice
5

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 1 of 14
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−00243−TSC

TYPE−D

ZADEH et al v. TRUMP et al Assigned to: Judge Tanya S. Chutkan Case: 1:17−cv−00255−TSC Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (aliens and nationality)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/03/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

FARSHID M. ZADEH

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 434 Washington, DC 20008 (202) 457−0800 x1004 Fax: (202) 457−0805 Email: artspitzer@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Horwitz COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kit A. Pierson COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4603 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: KPierson@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Douglas Bunch COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: dbunch@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally M. Handmaker COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 2 of 14
1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408−4600 Fax: (202) 408−4699 Email: shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 434 Washington, DC 20008 (202) 457−0800 Fax: (202) 457−0805 Email: smichelman@acludc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Abdinasir M. Abdulahi AMA LAW GROUP PLLC 1113 E. Franklin Avenue Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 871−1110 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam W. Hansen APOLLO LAW LLC 400 S. Fourth St., Suite 401M 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 927−2969 Fax: (419) 793−1804 Email: adam@apollo−law.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amir Malik COUNCIL ON AMERICAN−ISLAMIC RELATIONS MINNESOTA 2511 East Franklin Avenue Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55406 (612) 206−3360 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Casper Sanchez UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL Center for New Americans 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625−5515 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John B. Gordon AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MINNESOTA 2300 Myrtle Avenue Suite 180

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 3 of 14

St. Paul, MN 55113 (651) 645−4097 Fax: (651) 647−5948 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin C. Riach FREDRIKSON & BRYON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)492−7000 Email: kriach@fredlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Linus Chan UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL Center for New Americans 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 301−1156 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina M. Jeffries UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL Center for New Americans 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 625−5515 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Brenes THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 330 Second Avenue South Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 746−4684 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa J. Nelson AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MINNESOTA 2300 Myrtle Avenue Suite 180 St. Paul, MN 55113 (651) 529−1692 Fax: (651) 547−5948 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SAMANEH RAGHIMI

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Horwitz (See above for address)

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 4 of 14
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kit A. Pierson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Douglas Bunch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally M. Handmaker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Abdinasir M. Abdulahi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam W. Hansen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amir Malik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John B. Gordon (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin C. Riach (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. Linus Chan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Regina M. Jeffries (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Brenes (See above for address)

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 5 of 14

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa J. Nelson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MOHAMED IYE

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Horwitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kit A. Pierson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Douglas Bunch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally M. Handmaker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Abdinasir M. Abdulahi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam W. Hansen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amir Malik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin Casper Sanchez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John B. Gordon (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 6 of 14

Kevin C. Riach (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Linus Chan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina M. Jeffries (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Brenes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa J. Nelson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SAIDO A. ABDILLE

represented by Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Horwitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kit A. Pierson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Douglas Bunch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally M. Handmaker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Michelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Abdinasir M. Abdulahi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam W. Hansen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 7 of 14
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amir Malik (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Casper Sanchez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John B. Gordon (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin C. Riach (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. Linus Chan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Regina M. Jeffries (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Brenes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J. Nelson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
DONALD J. TRUMP President of the United States of America

represented by Joshua Samuel Press U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305−0106 Fax: (202) 305−7000 Email: joshua.press@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth A. Adebonojo U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2562

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 8 of 14

Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: kenneth.adebonojo@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 9 of 14

DANA J. BOENTE Acting Attorney General of the United States

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN KELLY Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
LORI SCIALABBA Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

represented by Joshua Samuel Press (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth A. Adebonojo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant HIAS

represented by James E. B. Bobseine DECHERT, LLP 1900 K Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 261−3350 Email: james.bobseine@dechert.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/03/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, LORI SCIALABBA, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 10 of 14

02/03/2017 02/03/2017
02/04/2017
02/04/2017 02/04/2017 02/04/2017 02/04/2017
02/04/2017
02/04/2017 02/04/2017
02/05/2017 02/05/2017

filed by SAMANEH RAGHIMI, SAIDO A. ABDILLE, FARSHID M. ZADEH, MOHAMED IYE. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616082856) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(zrdj) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
SUMMONS Not Issued as to DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, LORI SCIALABBA, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (zrdj) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: A hearing is hereby set for 2/6/2017 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' motion by 8:00 p.m. tonight, 2/4/2017. In their response, Defendants shall address the applicability of recently issued nationwide orders in 17−cv−0786 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) and 17−cv−0141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). Plaintiffs shall also file a statement of no more than 10 pages by 8:00 p.m. tonight regarding the applicability of these orders. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/4/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth A. Adebonojo on behalf of All Defendants (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by S. Douglas Bunch on behalf of SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
5 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
6 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Temporary Restraining Order by DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, LORI SCIALABBA, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Adam W. Hansen, :Firm− Apollo Law LLC, :Address− 400 S. Fourth St., Suite 401M 250, Minneapolis, MN 55415. Phone No. − (612) 927−2969. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4831204. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Defendants shall file their response to 2 Plaintiffs' Motion by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, 2/5/2017. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/4/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Kevin C. Riach, :Firm− Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., :Address− 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Phone No. − (612) 492−7000. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4831206. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/04/2017)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Samuel Press on behalf of All Defendants (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
10 RESPONSE re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 6 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Temporary Restraining Order filed by DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 11 of 14

02/05/2017 02/05/2017
02/05/2017
02/05/2017 02/05/2017 02/05/2017 02/05/2017 02/05/2017
02/05/2017
02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017

K. MCALEENAN, LORI SCIALABBA, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Kevin Charles Riach is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/5/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Denying without prejudice 7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for failing to fully comply with Local Civil Rule 83.2, which requires "a certification that the attorney [seeking admission] either HAS or HAS NOT BEEN DISCIPLINED by any bar, and if the attorney has been disciplined by any bar, the circumstances and details of the discipline." Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/5/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
11 Amended MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Adam W. Hansen, :Firm− Apollo Law LLC, :Address− 400 S. Fourth St., Suite 401M 250, Minneapolis, MN 55415. Phone No. − (612) 927−2969. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Adam William Hansen is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/5/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Arthur B. Spitzer on behalf of SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Michelman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
14 STATUS REPORT by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH. (Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
15 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Regina M. Jeffries, :Firm− University of Minnesota Law School, Center for New Americans, :Address− 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone No. − (612) 625−5515. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4831243. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) Modified on 2/6/2017 (td). (Entered: 02/05/2017)
16 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Regina M. Jeffries, :Firm− University of Minnesota Law School, Center for New Americans, :Address− 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone No. − (612) 625−5515. CORRECTED Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: TRO Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (tb) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Regina M. Jeffries, :Firm− University of Minnesota Law School, Center for New Americans, :Address− 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone No. − (612) 625−5515. Filin was entered in error and counsel refiled said pleading as docket entry no. 16 . (td) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 16 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Regina M. Jeffries is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 12 of 14

02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017
02/06/2017 02/06/2017
02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/13/2017
02/14/2017

Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/6/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: A conference call is hereby set for 12:00 p.m. today in Courtroom 2. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/6/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 2/6/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (tb) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's response due by 12:00 on 2/6/2017. (tb) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The conference call previously scheduled for 12:00 p.m. is hereby RESCHEDULED for 12:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/6/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
17 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order that Defendants' response is due by 12:00 p.m. on 02/06/2017 filed by DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, LORI SCIALABBA, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record in court, the hearing previously scheduled for 2:00 p.m. is hereby VACATED. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report by 5:00 p.m. EST tomorrow, 2/7/2017. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/6/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
18 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Teresa Nelson, :Firm− American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Minnesota, :Address− 2300 Myrtle Avenue, Suite 180, St. Paul, MN 55113. Phone No. − 651−529−1692. Fax No. − 651−647−5948 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4832168. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Teresa Nelson, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5:00 est. on 2/7/2017. (tb) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
Minute Entry: Telephone Conference held on 2/6/2017 before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. The parties shall meet and confer and file a notice regarding the withdrawal of the TRO in this case by COB on 02/07/17. (Court Reporter Jan Dickman) (tb) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Notice regarding withdrawal of the TRO due by COB on 2/7/2017. (tb) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 18 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Teresa Nelson is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/7/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
19 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Joint Statement and Stipulation to Withdraw Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
20 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− John B. Gordon, :Firm− American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Minnesota, :Address− 2300 Myrtle Avenue, Suite 180, St. Paul, MN 55113. Phone No. − 651−645−4097. Fax No. − 651−647−5948 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4841323. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John B. Gordon, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
21 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− R. Linus Chan, :Firm− University of Minnesota Law School, Center for New Americans, :Address− 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone No. − (612) 301−1156. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4841767. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE,

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 13 of 14

02/14/2017
02/14/2017
02/14/2017
02/15/2017 02/15/2017
02/15/2017 02/15/2017
02/15/2017 02/16/2017 02/16/2017 02/16/2017

MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
22 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Benjamin Casper Sanchez, :Firm− University of Minnesota Law School, Center for New Americans, :Address− 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone No. − (612) 625−5515. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4841791. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
23 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Amir Malik, :Firm− Council on American−Islamic Relations Minnesota, :Address− 2511 East Franklin Ave, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55406. Phone No. − (612) 206−3360. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4842722. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
24 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Sarah Brenes, :Firm− The Advocates for Human Rights, :Address− 330 Second Avenue South, Suite 800, Minneapolis, MN 55401. Phone No. − (612) 746−4684. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4842963. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Horwitz on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Horwitz, Julia) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
26 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Abdinasir M. Abdulahi, :Firm− AMA Law Group PLLC, :Address− 1113 E. Franklin Ave, Suite 104, Minneapolis, MN 55404. Phone No. − (612) 871−1110. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−4843824. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SAIDO A. ABDILLE, MOHAMED IYE, SAMANEH RAGHIMI, FARSHID M. ZADEH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bunch, S.) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Sally M. Handmaker on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Handmaker, Sally) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
28 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by SAMANEH RAGHIMI, SAIDO A. ABDILLE, FARSHID M. ZADEH, MOHAMED IYE. (Attachments: # 1 Summons US Attorney General, # 2 Summons Customs and Border Protection, # 3 Summons Department of Homeland Security, # 4 Summons Secretary of Homeland Security, # 5 Summons State Department, # 6 Summons United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, # 7 Summons United States Citizenship and Immigration Services)(Horwitz, Julia) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
29 SUMMONS (8) Issued Electronically as to DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (td) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 20 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney John B. Gordon is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/16/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 21 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney R. Linus Chan is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/16/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 22 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Benjamin Casper Sanchez is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/16/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-243 As of: 03/10/2017 11:38 AM EST 14 of 14

02/16/2017 02/16/2017 02/16/2017 03/01/2017 03/02/2017 03/06/2017
03/08/2017 03/08/2017

MINUTE ORDER: Granting 23 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Amir Malik is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/16/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 24 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Sarah Brenes is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/16/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 26 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Abdinasir M. Abdulahi is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/16/17. (DJS) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
30 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by HIAS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order Regarding HIAS' Motion, # 2 Exhibit Amicus Brief)(Bobseine, James) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
MINUTE ORDER denying 30 HIAS's Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief. There is no pending motion in this case, and based on the caption in this motion HIAS appears to have filed its motion in the wrong case. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 3/2/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
31 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 2/21/2017., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DANA J. BOENTE served on 2/21/2017; JOHN KELLY served on 2/21/2017; DONALD J. TRUMP served on 2/21/2017; U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL served on 2/21/2017; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES served on 2/27/2017; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 2/21/2017; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 2/21/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit − Channing Phillips, # 2 Affidavit − U.S. Customs and Border Protection, # 3 Affidavit − Dana Boente, # 4 Affidavit − U.S. Department of Homeland Security, # 5 Affidavit − John F. Kelly, # 6 Affidavit − U.S. Department of State, # 7 Affidavit − U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)(Horwitz, Julia) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
32 STIPULATION of Dismissal by DANA J. BOENTE, JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, LORI SCIALABBA, DONALD J. TRUMP, U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
33 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Dismissing action pursuant to the parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal 32 . Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 3/8/17. (DJS) (Entered: 03/08/2017)