Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112

-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff is a Sunni Muslim asylee who, after being fully vetted by U.S. immigration authorities, was granted asylum status because of the torture and religious persecution he had suffered in Syria. He thereafter filed a derivative asylum application in order to reunite with his loving wife and his only surviving child, a three-year-old daughter he has not seen since March 2014, who remain in war-torn Syria. 2. On January 27, 2017, however, President Trump signed an executive order (the “Executive Order”) indefinitely suspending entry of Syrian refugees into the United States — and stopping Plaintiff’s derivative asylum application in its tracks. The Executive Order effectuates President Trump’s long-standing campaign promise of implementing a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” It is also unlawfully and unconstitutionally

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 2 of 19
preventing Plaintiff from reuniting with his wife and young daughter, and this Court should set it aside.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff John Doe was granted asylum status in May 2016 and his meritorious derivative asylum petition for his wife and daughter is pending. He resides in the Western District of Wisconsin. He will file a motion to proceed in this Court anonymously in order to protect his wife and daughter from harm that they stand to suffer in Aleppo, where they currently reside, should Plaintiff’s identity be revealed. 4. Defendant Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. President Trump signed the Executive Order that is the subject of this action. He is sued in his official capacity. 5. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Kelly is responsible for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Executive Order that is the subject of this action. He is sued in his official capacity. 6. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department within the U.S. federal government. Its functions include regulating entry into the United States and granting asylees prior approval to travel internationally. It is also responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA. 7. Defendant Lori Scialabba is the Acting Director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. She is sued in her official capacity. 8. Defendant U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is an agency within DHS whose primary functions include adjudication of asylum and derivative asylum claims. 9. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the U.S. Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has authority to determine and implement certain asylum procedures for non-citizens. Defendant Tillerson is sued in his official capacity.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 3 of 19
10. Defendant U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) is responsible for, inter alia, issuance of visas for asylees and derivative asylees seeking entry into the United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. There is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under Article II of the Constitution, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1182(f), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706. Additionally, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (providing jurisdiction in civil actions against the United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (providing jurisdiction to compel officers and employees of the above-listed federal agencies to do her or his duty). This Court has power to award the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202), the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706), and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. Plaintiff is Granted Asylum Status by the United States
13. Plaintiff fled Syria to escape near-certain death at the hands of two sectarian military forces, the Sunni-aligned Free Syrian Army (“FSA”) fighting against the Assad regime and the Alawite-aligned Syrian Arab Army fighting for the Assad regime (“SAA”). The FSA and SAA were vying for territorial control of Aleppo and both targeted Plaintiff. The FSA targeted him because Plaintiff lived in a part of Aleppo controlled by the SAA, and the FSA wrongly assumed that Plaintiff was sympathetic to the SAA. The SAA targeted Plaintiff because of his religious faith and because he travelled to FSA-controlled territory to manage his family’s business.
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 4 of 19
14. Members of the FSA and SAA extorted, falsely imprisoned, and tortured Plaintiff, and they threatened Plaintiff with death. Members of the SAA also threatened to rape his wife. Following torture and imprisonment at the hands of the SAA, the FSA placed Plaintiff on a “kill list” and the SAA attempted to conscript him. Plaintiff fled Syria at the urging of his friends and family.
15. Upon arriving in the United States in March 2014, Plaintiff requested asylum, and a USCIS officer determined that Plaintiff has established a credible fear of returning to Syria. Plaintiff filed an initial Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with the USCIS and awaited a response, eager to find a way to bring his wife and children to safety in the U.S.
16. By summer of 2015, with Plaintiff’s asylum application still pending, the security situation in Syria further deteriorated. In July 2015, Plaintiff’s three-year-old son fell three floors to his death while attempting to escape militia rocket fire that hit his home. Following his son’s death, Plaintiff filed a petition for Humanitarian Parole with USCIS in an attempt to secure the lives and wellbeing of his wife and daughter. That petition was rejected and Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended asylum application.
17. On May 27, 2016, a USCIS Immigration Judge in Chicago granted Plaintiff asylum. In so ruling, the Immigration Court made a finding that returning Plaintiff to Syria would threaten his life or freedom and would thus violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the INA. DHS did not appeal the decision, which became final at the end of June 2016. II. Plaintiff’s Derivative Asylum Petition Remains Pending
18. On July 5, 2016, having received asylum status, Plaintiff filed a Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition with the USCIS. The application sought derivative asylum for his wife and daughter, pursuant to INA § 208(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 208.21.
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 5 of 19
19. Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition conforms to applicable laws and agency regulations and establishes that Plaintiff is an asylee and that both his wife and daughter are qualifying beneficiaries.
20. Upon information and belief, the petition was reviewed at USCIS’s Nebraska processing center and was found in order. Upon information and belief, the petition was then forwarded to the USCIS’s Milwaukee office for a thorough security vetting of Plaintiff’s wife and daughter. Upon information and belief, after security vetting cleared, the petition was returned to Nebraska for final processing — that processing was halted on January 27, 2017.
21. Barring Plaintiff’s wife and three-year-old daughter entry into the United States plays no conceivable role in furthering the ostensible purpose of the Executive Order, which is allegedly to prohibit the entry of aliens with hostile attitudes toward the United States and its values.
22. Plaintiff’s wife does not bear hostile attitudes toward the United States and its founding principles. She supports the Constitution and has never and would never place violent ideologies over American law. She has not engaged in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from her own) and has never oppressed Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
23. Similarly, Plaintiff’s three-year-old daughter does not bear hostile attitudes toward the United States and its founding principles, and indeed is incapable of doing so. She also does not oppose the Constitution and does not place violent ideologies over American law (and, again, is incapable of doing so). She also has not engaged in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 6 of 19
different from her own) and has never oppressed Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
24. Until Plaintiff’s meritorious derivative asylum petition is granted and the State Department issues the requisite visas, his wife and daughter remain trapped in Syria. They are living in a war zone, far away from Plaintiff, and in hiding to avoid rape or murder at the hands of the SAA. They lack adequate food, shelter, and basic medical care. In short, their lives are in real and imminent danger. III. President Trump Issues the Executive Order Banning Muslims and Refugees
A. President Trump Ran on a Platform of Banning or Limiting Muslim Immigration to the United States.
25. The Executive Order effectuates President Trump’s campaign promise, made on December 7, 2015, to enact a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” See Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Summary Judgment, to be filed February 13, 2017 (“Breidenbach Decl.”) Ex. A. The press release continued: “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.” Id.
26. The next day, during an interview discussing his Muslim ban policy, Trump confirmed a reporter’s characterization that airline and U.S. government officials would ask people seeking to enter the United States, “Are you Muslim?” “[I]f they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. B
27. During his campaign, Trump consistently adhered to the policy of banning Muslims from U.S. soil, stating on March 9, 2016 that “Islam hates us.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. C.
28. Trump refused to distinguish between the Muslim faith and Muslim terrorists, saying that “[i]t’s very hard to separate [radical Islam and Islam itself], because you don’t know
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 7 of 19
who is who. . . . There’s a sickness going on that’s unbelievable. And honestly, you have to get to the bottom of it.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. C.
29. At a nationally televised Republican debate the next day, Trump claimed that “large portions of a group of people, of Islam, . . . want to use very, very harsh means. Let me go further. Women are treated horribly. . . . Women are treated horribly, and other things are happening that are very, very bad.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. D.
30. On June 13, 2016, Trump reiterated his promise to ban all Muslims entering this country until “we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. F.
31. On June 14, 2016, at a campaign rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, Trump attacked “[t]he children of Muslim immigrant parents,” stating, “they’re responsible for a growing number . . . of terrorist attacks.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. G.
32. On July 17, 2016, in an interview with 60 Minutes, when confronted with the fact that a ‘Muslim ban’ would be unconstitutional, Trump responded “So you call it territories, ok? We’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. EE.
33. In a foreign policy speech delivered on August 15, 2016, Trump noted that the United States could not “adequate[ly] screen[]” immigrants because it admits “about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. I. During the speech, Trump proposed creating an ideological screening test for immigration applicants, which would “screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles — or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.” Id. During the speech, he referred to his proposal as “extreme, extreme vetting.” Id.
7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 8 of 19
34. On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States. In his first television interview as President, he again referred to his plan for “extreme vetting: we’re not letting people in if we think there’s even a little chance of some problem.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. L.
35. On January 27, 2017, just prior to executing the Executive Order, President Trump gave an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network. During that interview, President Trump confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees, asserting (falsely) that “[i]f you were a Muslim you could come in [to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible . . . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. M.
B. President Trump Signs and Implements the Executive Order. 36. On January 27, 2017, one week after being sworn in, President Trump signed Executive Order 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. N. 37. During a signing ceremony for the Executive Order on January 27, 2017, President Trump stated, “Protection of the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. . . . We all know what that means.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. P. He then added: “We all know what that means.” Id. 38. The Executive Order directs a series of changes to the manner in which non-citizens may seek and obtain entry into the United States and affects Plaintiff’s pending asylum application in several respects. 39. At the outset, Section 3(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries referred to in INA § 217(a)(12), 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), including Syria, “would be detrimental to the interests of the
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 9 of 19
United States.” (The other affected countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.) The Executive Order “suspend[s] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” Section 3(g) permits the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to, on a “case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”
40. Section 5(a) of the Executive Order suspends for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”). When USRAP resumes, section 5(b) requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.” Section 5(g) allows the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to exercise their discretion to admit refugees barred by section 5(a), “but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest—including[, inter alia,] when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.”
41. Section 5(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that entry of Syrian refugees is “detrimental to the interests of the United States” and suspends their entry “indefinitely.” This ban applies whether or not a non-citizen Syrian seeking entry poses any individualized threat of violence or has any connection to terrorist organizations or activities—indeed, it applies to young children such as Plaintiff’s three-year-old daughter and other individuals incapable of posing a threat to the national security interests of the United States.
42. According to a study spanning 1975 to 2015, no fatal terrorist attack has been perpetrated in the United States by a national of one of the seven countries covered by Section 3(c)
9

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 10 of 19
of the Executive Order, nor have any Syrians been convicted of attempting a terrorist attack during this time frame. Breidenbach Decl. Ex. K. Conversely, nationals from other countries not subject to the Executive Order have perpetrated fatal attacks in the U.S. Breidenbach Decl. Ex. S.
43. In a recent joint declaration, ten former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government affirmed, under penalty of perjury, that “[a]s a national security measure, the [Executive] Order is unnecessary. National security-based immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on (1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed, or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. X. These officials further declared that “[r]ebranding a proposal first advertised as a ‘Muslim Ban’ as ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.” Id. ¶ 9.
44. If there was any doubt as to the Executive Order’s anti-Muslim animus, it was dispelled on January 29, 2017 by Rudy Giuliani, who served as a surrogate during Trump’s campaign. In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Giuliani explained “the whole history” of the Executive Order: “[W]hen [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.’” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. Q.
45. Consistent with President Trump’s statements to the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Executive Order prioritizes the asylum applications of non-Muslims. Sections 5(a)–
10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 11 of 19
(b) of the Executive Order suspend the USRAP in its entirety for 120 days and then, upon its resumption, direct the Secretary of State to prioritize refugees who claim religious-based persecution, “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”
46. President Trump himself took to the media to announce that his “very, very strict ban” was “working out very nicely.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. T.
47. Then-Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates disagreed with the President in a Department of Justice letter circulated on January 30, 2017, in which she stated that she was not “convinced that the Executive Order is lawful” and that, “for as long as [she] is the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order[.]” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. U. Ms. Yates clearly indicated that she based her decision in part on “statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of [the] Executive Order[.]” Id.
48. Meanwhile, more than two dozen cases have been filed in federal court challenging the Executive Order. Among them is Washington v. Trump, originally filed by the State of Washington in the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs in that case obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting nationwide enforcement at “United States borders and ports of entry” of sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c) in their entireties and of section 5(e) to the extent that section “purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” See Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The temporary restraining order also prohibited the government from “proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities” under section 5(e). Id. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s request to stay the temporary restraining order in a per
11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 12 of 19
curium opinion seven days later. Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017). IV. The Executive Order Indefinitely Separates Plaintiff from his Immediate Family and
Disfavors Plaintiff’s Religion 49. Absent the Executive Order, USCIS lacks a legal basis upon which to deny — much less to indefinitely refrain from adjudicating — Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition for his wife and daughter. 50. Sections 3(c) and 5(a)–(c) of the Executive Order prohibit USCIS from adjudicating Plaintiff’s petition. The same provisions also bar the State Department from issuing visas to Plaintiff’s wife and daughter for entry into the United States as derivative asylees. Thus, as a direct result of the terms of the Executive Order, and despite the obvious merit of Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition, Plaintiff’s family is indefinitely — and perhaps permanently — separated. This separation deprives Plaintiff of the companionship of his wife and the custody and care of his only surviving child. 51. In addition, Sections 3(g) and 5(e) impinge on Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right by disfavoring his religion. 52. Although the court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, that injunctive relief is both temporary and applies only to enforcement at “United States borders and ports of entry.” See Washington, 2017 WL 462040, at *2. Thus, it apparently does not address Plaintiff’s harm with respect to his derivative asylum application. 53. A leaked memorandum issued by Defendant Scialabba indicates that USCIS has not interpreted the temporary restraining order in Washington as applying to beneficiaries outside the United States, such as Plaintiff’s family. Breidenbach Decl. Ex. V.
12

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 13 of 19
54. Upon information and belief, the State Department has instructed its embassies to cease interviewing and issuing derivative asylum visas for spouses (“V92” visas) and children (“V93” visas) of asylees. Breidenbach Decl. Ex. R.
55. As a result, Plaintiff’s rights continue to be violated, his derivative asylum petition remains indefinitely suspended, and he continues to be separated from his family on the basis of the unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Order.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 56. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 57. The Executive Order exceeds the President’s lawful authority under section 212(f) of the INA, as interpreted in the context of the INA as a whole and as limited by specific provisions of the INA. 58. For example, the INA prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). The Executive Order, both facially and as implemented, discriminates on the basis of nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence in the issuance of visas, in violation of the INA. 59. Defendants’ violations of the INA have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiff by, among other injuries, indefinitely denying him access to his family. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION OF THE APA 60. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
13

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 14 of 19
61. The APA prohibits federal agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, or contrary to statute. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C).
62. In implementing the Executive Order, as alleged herein, Defendant federal agencies have acted in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, thereby violating the APA.
63. Defendants’ violations of the APA have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiff by, among other injuries, indefinitely denying him access to his family.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION PROCEDURAL VIOLATION OF THE APA 64. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 65. The APA requires federal agencies to conduct formal rulemaking before engaging in action that impacts substantive rights and prohibits federal agency action that does not comply with the required procedures. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706(2)(D). 66. The INA and its implementing regulations set forth the substantive standards governing when individuals may enter the United States or be considered for asylum. In implementing the Executive Order, Defendants have altered these substantive standards by suspending all entry by affected individuals, including Plaintiff’s family, and foreclosing Plaintiff’s ability to obtain derivative asylum for his wife and daughter based solely on their nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence. 67. Defendants did not follow the procedures required by the APA before taking these actions affecting substantive rights, thereby violating the APA. 68. Defendants’ violations of the APA have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiff by, among other injuries, indefinitely denying him access to his family.
14

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 15 of 19
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FIFTH AMENDMENT – DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 69. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 70. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving individuals of their fundamental rights and important liberty interests without due process of law. 71. Plaintiff’s fundamental rights include his right to the “integrity of [his] family unit.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972); see also Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503–05 (1977) (“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”). Plaintiff’s fundamental rights as a parent also include his right to the custody, care, and management of his daughter and the right to “give [his daughter] religious training and to encourage [her] in the practice of religious belief.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 165 (1944). 72. The Executive Order directly and substantially infringes on Plaintiff’s fundamental rights. Plaintiff cannot return to Syria — the Executive Order bars him from travelling outside the United States — but even if he could, he would likely be murdered. And Plaintiff’s wife and daughter cannot come to the United States because their derivative applications are indefinitely suspended by the Executive Order. 73. The Due Process Clause forbids Defendants from infringing on Plaintiff’s fundamental rights unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. On its face and as applied, the Executive Order fails this test. It is not
15

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 16 of 19
narrowly tailored to protect national security interests — it indefinitely blocks all persons from Syria from entry into the United States, regardless of their relationship to terrorism. The overbreadth and irrationality of the Executive Order is strikingly apparent here: it blocks a threeyear-old child from entry, stranding her in a country that DHS determined is too dangerous for her father. Moreover, the Executive Order is a “Muslim ban” by another name.
74. The Executive Order also infringes on Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights. Plaintiff has a liberty interest to live together with his wife and child in the United States. See, e.g., Stanley, 405 U.S. at 651. This liberty interest flows from the solicitude granted marriage and family integrity by American historical tradition and is evident in various provisions of immigration law, including the federal government’s derivative asylum process. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment vests Plaintiff with procedural due process rights that include the right to have his application for derivative asylum fairly adjudicated. By indefinitely suspending his derivative asylum application on the basis of national origin and religious discrimination, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his liberty interests for illegitimate reasons and without constitutionally adequate procedures.
75. Accordingly, in issuing and implementing the Executive Order, Defendants violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION 76. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 77. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects aliens living within the United States from the federal government denying equal protection of the law.
16

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 17 of 19
78. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order classifies individuals and targets Plaintiff for discriminatory treatment on the basis of national origin and religion without lawful justification.
79. The Executive Order was motivated by discriminatory animus and has a disparate impact on members of the Muslim faith.
80. The Executive Order’s discriminatory terms and application serve no compelling government interest and are not narrowly tailored.
81. Through their actions, Defendants violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 82. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 83. The true purpose of the Executive Order is hostility toward Islam. The proffered secular purpose, national security, is a sham. 84. Manifesting a purpose to favor one religion, Christianity, over another, Islam, the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by not pursuing a course of neutrality with respect to different religious.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants as follows: (a) Declare that sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order are unlawful
and unconstitutional facially and as applied to Plaintiff’s pending application for derivative asylum for his wife and daughter;
17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 18 of 19 (b) Declare that Defendants are obligated to promptly and fairly adjudicate Plaintiff’s
petition for derivative asylum solely in accordance with preexisting law, including INA § 208(b)(3), 8 C.F.R. § 208.21, and the Constitution, and without regard to the letter or spirit of the Executive Order; (c) Declare that Defendants may not deny Plaintiff’s wife and daughter visas nor bar their entry into the United States in violation of INA § 208(b)(3), 8 C.F.R. § 208.21, and the Constitution or in furtherance of the letter or spirit of the Executive Order; (d) Permanently enjoin the enforcement of Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order and order that, in the event that Plaintiff’s petition for asylum is granted, Defendants are obligated (i) to promptly issue immigration visas to Plaintiff’s wife and daughter, and (ii) to permit them to travel to and enter the United States with those visas; (e) For any such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
18

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 19 of 19

DEMAND FOR TMAL BY JURY Plaintiffdemandsa trial byjury forall issuessotriableasa matterofright.

Dated: New York, New York
February13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
HOLWEUL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
By:_
Levy (vlevy@hsgllp. com) SurenGiudice(lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp. com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp. com) MatthewV.H. Noller(mnoller@hsgllp. com) Sarah Stemlieb (sstemlieb@hsgllp. com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp. com) (law clerk New York State Bar admission pending)
750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor
NewYork, NY 10019 (646)837-5151
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112

-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support, Plaintiff’s Proposed Statement of Record Facts, Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach, and Affidavits of John Doe, as well as any other matter that the Court may determine to be just and proper, Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, moves this Court for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and, because there are no reasonable disputes of material fact, for summary judgment.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiff notified Defendants’ counsel at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin on February 13, 2017 that Plaintiff planned to seek the foregoing relief.

Dated: New York, New York February 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
By: Vincent Levy Vincent Levy (vlevy@hsgllp.com) Lauren Giudice (lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp.com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp.com) Matthew V.H. Noller (mnoller@hsgllp.com) Sarah Sternlieb (ssternlieb@hsgllp.com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp.com) (law clerk – New York State Bar admission pending)
750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151
Attorneys for Plaintiff

2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112

-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

Upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support, Declaration of John Doe, and Declaration of Vincent Levy dated February 13, 2017, together with exhibits thereto, and upon the Complaint, and being otherwise apprised of the applicable law and all other matters and facts properly before the Court, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are temporarily restrained and enjoined from (a) enforcing Executive Order 13769, signed January 27, 2017, and (b) otherwise considering or relying in any way upon the Executive Order in processing (i) the application for derivative asylum filed by Plaintiff on behalf of his wife and daughter and (ii) any subsequent visa application by Plaintiff or his wife or daughter.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2

2. No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). 3. Defendants having already briefed many of the issues on an expedited basis in other jurisdictions, Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or for a preliminary injunction shall be due five days after the date of this order. Plaintiff may submit a reply within two days of Defendants’ opposition. If the Court determines that a hearing is necessary to take evidence or hear arguments, it shall notify the parties promptly following receipt of the parties’ briefing. The temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until a hearing decision is rendered on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or for a preliminary injunction. 4. Providing a copy of this order to Defendants’ counsel on or before the ____ day of ___________, 2017, either by email or by filing the order on ECF, shall be deemed good and sufficient service thereof.

Dated: Madison, Wisconsin ____ day of ________, 2017

SO ORDERED.
___________________________ United States District Judge

2

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112

-against-

DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dated: February 13, 2017

HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 2 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................. 7
I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .......... 8 A. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES THE INA ..................................... 8 B. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNLAWFULLY INTERFERES WITH PLAINTIFF’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY, IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS................................................................. 14 C. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION .................................. 19 D. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES ON THE BASIS OF NATIONALITY.......................... 22 E. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT JUSTIFY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BASED ON SO-CALLED PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.............................. 23
II. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER TEMPORARY AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EXPEDITION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ...................................................................................... 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 27

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 3 of 34

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 7, 25

Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 25

Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 478 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 8

Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 15

Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 17

Church of Lukami Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).................................................................................................................. 20

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985).................................................................................................................. 22

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Elmbrook School Dist., 687 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 20

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).................................................................................................................. 25

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)...................................................................................................................... 23

Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 165 F. Supp. 3d 718 (S.D. Ind. 2016) ....................................................................................... 16

Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 838 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 8, 16, 22

Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 25

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000).................................................................................................................. 12

ii

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 4 of 34
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).................................................................................................................. 16
Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 7
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).................................................................................................................. 14
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).................................................................................................................. 23
Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943 (2013) ................................................................................................................ 9
Jamison v. Stetson, 471 F. Supp. 48 (N.D.N.Y. 1978) ............................................................................................. 25
Jessen v. Vill. of Lyndon Station, 519 F. Supp. 1183 (W.D. Wis. 1981) ....................................................................................... 25
Joelner v. Vill. of Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 25
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 19
KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 26
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2014) .............................................................................................................. 17
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).................................................................................................................. 16
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982).................................................................................................................. 19
Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................ 8, 10
Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 25
Loughhalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017) ................................................................................ 18 iii

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 5 of 34
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)...................................................................................................................... 14
Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 13
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).................................................................................................................. 18
McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005).................................................................................................................. 20
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).................................................................................................................. 14
Milwaukee Cty. Pavers Ass’n v. Fiedler, 707 F. Supp. 1016 (W.D. Wis.) ................................................................................................ 25
Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).................................................................................................................. 15
N.Y. State Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405 (1973).................................................................................................................. 12
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) .............................................................................................................. 14
Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) ................................................................................................... 9
Omar v. Kerry, No. 15-CV-01760-JSC, 2015 WL 5964901 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).................................... 25
Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979).................................................................................................................. 20
Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).................................................................................................................. 14
Ping Ping Zhou v. Kane, No. CV07-0785-PHX-DGC (ECV), 2007 WL 1559938 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2007).................. 25
Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1978) .................................................................................................... 25
iv

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 6 of 34
Ramirez-Vicario v. Achim, No. 04 C 0301, 2004 WL 392573 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2004)..................................................... 25
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).................................................................................................................. 23
Sampson v. Fed. Republic of Ger., 250 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 12
School Dist. of Abingdon Twp. v. Schemp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)............................................................................................................ 20, 21
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).................................................................................................................. 17
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).................................................................................................................... 14
United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971).................................................................................................................. 26
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 23
Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).................................................................................................................. 20
Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, (7th Cir. 2006)` .................................................................................................. 19
Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) ............................................ 6
Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017) .................................................. passim
Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001).................................................................................................................. 12
Winnig v. Sellen, 731 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Wis. 2010) ...................................................................................... 7
Wong Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1966)...................................................................................................... 17
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).................................................................................................................. 24 v

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 7 of 34
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).................................................................................................................. 15
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965)...................................................................................................................... 23
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) .......................................................................................................... 8, 23
Statutes and Regulations 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) .......................................................................................................................... 24 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. .................................................... passim
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) .................................................................................................................... 12 8 U.S.C. § 1152........................................................................................................... 8, 9, 10, 11 8 U.S.C. § 1153................................................................................................................... 11, 12 8 U.S.C. § 1154......................................................................................................................... 12 8 U.S.C. § 1157......................................................................................................................... 11 8 U.S.C. § 1158................................................................................................................... 10, 11 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)....................................................................................................................... 8 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414, § 212(e), 66 Stat. 163 (1952) ............ 9 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89-236, § 2, 79 Stat. 911 (1965)..................... 9 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 .......................................................................................................................... 11 8 C.F.R. § 208.21 ............................................................................................................................ 3 Other Authorities Executive Order 13769 .......................................................................................................... passim H.R. Rep. No. 89-745 (1965).......................................................................................................... 9 Pres. Proc. No. 5517 (Aug. 22, 1986) ........................................................................................... 13 S. Rep. No. 89-748 (1965) ........................................................................................................ 9, 12
vi

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 8 of 34
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an action to enjoin the unlawful immigration ban that President Trump sought to implement by executive order on January 27, 2017. Plaintiff is a lawful resident alien who, after more than a year of thorough vetting by U.S. immigration authorities, was granted asylum status in May 2016 on account of the torture and persecution he had suffered in Syria and the risk of serious harm he faced there should he return. He promptly filed a derivative application to secure asylum status for his wife and three-year old daughter, both of whom had been forced to stay behind in war-torn Aleppo. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), approval of that application should have been a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, on January 27, 2017, President Trump stopped Plaintiff’s derivative application in its tracks by signing the Executive Order — which, ostensibly in “the interests of the United States,” indefinitely suspends the entry of all Syrians — and is thus indefinitely keeping Plaintiff apart from his wife and young child, who remain in Aleppo, hiding from warring factions who wish them both dead. The Executive Order should promptly be set aside. It violates the terms of the INA and frustrates Congress’s purpose in passing that statute, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and was intended to secure the right of family integrity. It also violates the Constitution of the United States in multiple respects. By interfering with Plaintiff’s fundamental right to family integrity in a manner that does not narrowly support a compelling government interest, and without adequate procedures, the Executive Order violates the Due Process Clause. By banning nationals from a predominantly Muslim country and reflecting an invidious purpose of disfavoring Muslims, the Order violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause. And by banning the entry of Syrian refugees wholesale, the Order unlawfully discriminates on the basis of nationality, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
1

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 9 of 34

The material facts here are not subject to reasonable dispute, and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his claims.1 Moreover, because he (along with his family) stands to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and the equities strongly weigh in his favor, the Court should expedite consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and enter temporary and/or preliminary injunctive relief in the meantime.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 A. Plaintiff Seeks Asylum in the United States for Himself and His Family
Plaintiff is a thirty-two-year-old Syrian man who resides in Wisconsin. Before he came to the United States, Plaintiff, a Sunni Muslim, had faced near-certain death at the hands of two warring forces in Aleppo — the Sunni-aligned Free Syrian Army (“FSA”) and the Alawitealigned Syrian Arab Army (“SAA”). The FSA and SAA have been engaged in a six-year civil war for control of Aleppo. In 2013, the FSA began targeting Plaintiff on the incorrect belief that Plaintiff was sympathetic to the SAA; the SAA, for its part, targeted Plaintiff because he was Sunni and owned a business in FSA-controlled territory. FSA and SAA soldiers extorted, falsely imprisoned, tortured, and threatened to kill Plaintiff. The SAA threatened to rape his wife.
After learning that he had been “marked for death” by the FSA and conscripted into the SAA, Plaintiff fled Syria and sought asylum in the United States in March 2014. In April 2014 Plaintiff filed an initial Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). While his initial application was under

1

A party may move for summary judgment “at any time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b).

2

The facts set forth herein are supported by the accompanying declarations of John Doe

and Andrew Breidenbach. Once the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file under seal, Plaintiff

intends to submit additional documents under seal for additional support, including his

application for asylum, the order granting him asylum, and his derivative asylum application.

2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 10 of 34
review, the building where his wife and children were hiding in Aleppo was hit by rocket fire. In the ensuing panic, Plaintiff’s three-year-old son fell three stories and died. Unable to comfort his wife or mourn his son in person, Plaintiff redoubled his efforts to obtain asylum for himself and his family and filed an amended asylum application in October 2015. In May 2016, an Immigration Judge granted Plaintiff asylum, finding that Plaintiff’s return to Syria would threaten his life or freedom in violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
As soon as the Immigration Judge’s decision became final, Plaintiff sought asylum for his wife and daughter by filing a Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition with the USCIS. See INA § 208(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.21. Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition establishes that he is an asylee and that his wife and daughter are qualifying beneficiaries. Derivative applications establishing these elements are routinely granted upon the U.S. government’s confirmation of the identity of the derivative asylees and a background check to ensure that the derivative asylees are not threats to the United States.
These additional elements, too, will readily be met. Plaintiff’s wife does not bear hostile attitudes toward the United States, its Constitution, or its founding principles. Neither does his daughter, who is a three-year-old child incapable of holding such views. They have never engaged in acts of bigotry, hatred, persecution, or terror, and they have never oppressed Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation. Like Plaintiff, they would be active and productive members of the Wisconsin community. For now, though, they remain trapped in Syria, where they live in hiding to avoid death or rape at the hands of the SAA and FSA. They lack access to basic medical care and adequate food. And they are at imminent risk of death.
As of January 26, 2017, approval of Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition seemed like a sure thing. USCIS’s processing center in Nebraska had reviewed the petition, found it to be in
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 11 of 34
order, and forwarded it to USCIS’s Milwaukee office for the security check. That too cleared, and the application was sent back to Nebraska for final processing. On January 27, 2017, however, Plaintiff’s hope of family reunification fell with the stroke of a pen.
B. Mr. Trump Promises a Muslim Ban and Signs the Executive Order Before he was elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to effectuate a
“complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 2. Amid criticism, the then-candidate and his associates shifted their rhetoric, pivoting to support a ban from certain countries with “a proven history of terrorism.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. F. Yet Mr. Trump acknowledged this pivot as “an expansion” of his proposed “Muslim ban,” not a rollback. See Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. H. And he repeatedly refused to distinguish between peaceful Muslims and terrorists, contending that “you don’t know who is who.” See Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 4.
Syrians, in particular, found themselves in Mr. Trump’s cross-hairs during the campaign. One of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises was to “stop the tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United States.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F. He urged citizens to “lock your doors” against Syrian refugees that had resettled in the United States. Id.
Mr. Trump began planning how to follow through on these invidious campaign promises even before taking office. In a television interview, Rudy Giuliani, a close advisor to Mr. Trump, explained that, after announcing his “Muslim ban,” Mr. Trump “called [Mr. Giuliani] up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 18.
Executive Order 13769, which President Trump signed on January 27, 2017, was the result. Titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” the Executive Order bars from the United States the very groups of immigrants President Trump promised to
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 12 of 34
target during his campaign, including all Syrians. See Breidenbach Decl. Ex. N. Thus, Section 3(c) of the Executive Order categorically prohibits the entry of all aliens from seven Muslimmajority countries, including Syria, for ninety days.3 Section 5(a) suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for all countries for 120 days, and Section 5(c) suspends the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely. These provisions apply whether or not a Syrian seeking entry poses any threat of violence or has any connection to terrorist organizations or activities. Indeed, Section 5(c) applies to Syrians of all ages, including young children like Plaintiff’s three-year-old daughter, who is plainly incapable of posing a threat to the United States.
The Executive Order also discriminates against Muslims. It directs the Secretary of State, upon resumption of refugee admissions, to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” Exec. Order § 5(b) (emphasis added); see also id. § 5(e) (allowing for exceptions to Section 5(a) “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution”). President Trump was frank about his intent to favor Christians over Muslims. Immediately before signing the Executive Order, President Trump (falsely) asserted that, under earlier refugee policies, “[i]f you were a Muslim you could come in [to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible[.] . . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 14.

3

Section 3(g) permits the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to, on “case-by-case

basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of

countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.” The Executive Order provides no

procedure or guidelines for such a request. It is also unclear how the admission of any individual

alien could ever be “in the national interest.”

5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 13 of 34
At the signing ceremony for the Executive Order, President Trump stated that its purpose is to “establish[] new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 16. He then added: “We all know what that means.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. O.
C. The Executive Order Indefinitely Separates Plaintiff from His Wife and Daughter Absent the Executive Order, USCIS lacks a legitimate basis to deny Plaintiff’s derivative
asylum petition, much less to indefinitely refrain from adjudicating the petition. But with the Executive Order in place, Plaintiff’s application is suspended indefinitely. Sections 3(c) and 5(a)– (c) prohibit USCIS from adjudicating Plaintiff’s petition and bar the State Department from issuing visas to Plaintiff’s wife and daughter as derivative asylees.
Although the District Court of the Western District of Washington in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of Section 5(c), that order, which is temporary and currently on appeal, does not bar enforcement of Section 5(a), and it applies only to “United States borders and ports of entry.” Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). As far as Plaintiff can tell, therefore, the Washington TRO does not prohibit application of the Executive Order in his case. Indeed, the Custom and Border Patrol website currently provides that the State Department may process visa applications only from applicants “with a passport from an unrestricted country.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 24. Likewise, a leaked memorandum issued by Defendant Scialabba indicates that USCIS has not interpreted the temporary restraining order in Washington as applying to aliens outside the United States, such as Plaintiff’s family. Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 23, Ex. V.
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 14 of 34
Thus, as a direct result of the Executive Order, and despite the obvious merit of Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition, Plaintiff is indefinitely — and perhaps permanently — separated from his wife and daughter, who face grave danger in Syria.
ARGUMENT There can be no genuine dispute of a material fact here, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the Order is clearly unlawful for multiple reasons: (1) it exceeds the President’s authority under the INA; (2) it violates Plaintiff’s fundamental right to family integrity, and thus violates his substantive and procedural due process rights; (3) it discriminates against Plaintiff on the basis of religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (4) it discriminates against Plaintiff on the basis of national origin, also in violation of equal protection. Moreover, because Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the Order is not enjoined immediately, he is entitled to a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, as well as expedited consideration of his summary-judgment motion. To obtain temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate (1) “some likelihood of success on the merits,” (2) no adequate remedy at law, (3) irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction, and (4) a balance of the equities in his favor. ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2012).4 The “more likely the plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balance of harms weigh in his favor.” Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Numerous courts have

4

The standards for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the

same. Winnig v. Sellen, 731 F. Supp. 2d 855, 856 (W.D. Wis. 2010).

7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 15 of 34
entered temporary restraining orders in cases challenging the Executive Order; this Court should do the same. I. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW A. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES THE INA
In issuing the Executive Order, the President expressly invoked his authority under Section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).5 But Section 212(f) does not authorize the President to suspend the refugee program or to indefinitely suspend entry of all Syrians, as the text and structure of the INA make apparent. See Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2090 (2015) (“The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.”).
1. To begin with, by prohibiting entry of all Syrians, the Executive Order violates Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the INA, w:
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or 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. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). This section “unambiguously direct[s] that no nationality-based discrimination shall occur.” Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 45 F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996). The Executive Order plainly contravenes that mandate because, as the Seventh Circuit recently held, “targeting
5 Section 212(f) provides, in relevant part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 16 of 34
Syrian refugees is discrimination on the basis of nationality.” Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 838 F.3d 902, 905 (7th Cir. 2016).
Nor does Section 212(f) exempt the President from Section 202(a)(1)(A)’s antidiscrimination rule. It is indeed well established that “[a] specific statute takes precedence over a more general statute, and a later enacted statute may limit the scope of an earlier statute.” Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 478 F.3d 814, 817 (7th Cir. 2007). That is the case here; Section 202(a)(1)(A) was enacted in 1965, thirteen years after Section 212(f). See INA of 1965, Pub. L. 89-236, § 2, 79 Stat. 911, 911 (1965); INA of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414, § 212(e), 66 Stat. 163, 188 (1952). And Section 202(a)(1)(A) by its plain terms applies “[e]xcept as specifically provided” in four identified provisions of the INA — none of which is Section 212(f). 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). Where, as here, “Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied.” Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943, 1953 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Section 202(a)(1)(A)’s antidiscrimination mandate does not include Section 212(f) in its list of exceptions, it limits the President’s authority under Section 212(f).
Section 202(a)(1)(A)’s legislative history confirms the point. Before 1965, U.S. immigration was governed by the “national origins system.” H.R. Rep. No. 89-745, at 8 (1965) (Breidenbach Decl. Ex. Y). Designed “to maintain the ethnic balance of the American population as it existed in 1920,” the national origins system created immigration quotas “based upon race and place of birth.” Id. at 10. By 1965, however, it was clear that the national origins system, which “impl[ied] that men and women from some countries are, just because of where they come from, more desirable citizens than others,” was “incompatible with our basic American tradition.” Id. at 11. In 1965, Congress thus passed the INA, the “primary objective”
9

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 17 of 34

of which was to “abolish[] . . . the national origins quota system” and replace it with “a new system of selection.” S. Rep. No. 89-748, at 11, 13 (1965) (Breidenbach Decl. Ex. Z); see H.R. Rep. No. 89-745, at 18. This new system, “designed to be fair, rational, humane, and in the national interest,” would select immigrants “without regard to place of birth.” H.R. Rep. No. 89745, at 12; see S. Rep. No. 89-748, at 13–14.
Section 202(a)(1)(A) was central to achieving the 1965 Act’s antidiscrimination goals. See Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31, 37 (D.D.C. 1997). By “flatly forbidding nationalitybased discrimination,” Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, 45 F.3d at 473, Section 202(a)(1)(A) ensured that the United States would never again close its borders to immigrants based solely on nationality. As President Johnson put it in a signing ceremony before the Statue of Liberty, “for over four decades the immigration policy of the United States ha[d] been twisted and . . . distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system.” The 1965 Act corrected this “cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. AA. In contravention of Congress’s mandate, President Trump has sought to repeat what President Johnson coined a “harsh injustice.”
2. Next, although it is not clear that Section 5(a)’s suspension of the entire “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days” applies to Plaintiff’s derivative asylum application,6 what is clear is that this provision also contravenes the statutes enacted by Congress. Section 212(f), which governs the “entry” of aliens, does not empower the President to unilaterally suspend the adjudication of asylum applications or otherwise to suspend USRAP,

6

Indeed, given that Plaintiff is applying for derivative asylum — meaning that his wife

and daughter do not need to demonstrate that they themselves are eligible for asylum in their

own right — it is not clear that the suspension of refugee applications governs at all.

10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 18 of 34
and it is telling that Section 5(a), unlike Section 5(c), does not even cite Section 212(f) — or, for that matter, any other statute — in purporting to suspend USRAP. Perhaps that is because Congress did not provide the President that authority.
Instead, Congress required “final administrative adjudication” of asylum applications to “be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii). To add other “conditions or limitations,” the Attorney General — not the President — must promulgate regulations (following notice and comment) that are “not inconsistent” with the INA. Id. § 1158(d)(5)(B). Section 5(a) of the Executive Order, which was issued by the President, is not a regulation promulgated following notice and comment, and it is inconsistent with the INA. Indeed, it is even inconsistent with the regulations that the Government has promulgated following notice and comment, including the prescription that the adjudication of any individual asylum application shall be vested to the discretion of “an asylum officer,” not the President. 8 C.F.R. § 208.14. Section 5(a) of the Executive Order is therefore unlawful.
3. More generally, the President’s reading of Section 212(f) to permit him to suspend all refugee applications and to suspend entry of all Syrians is plainly inconsistent with the statutory scheme, which carefully regulates immigration and refugee applications consistent with Congress’s policy judgments. Congress’s guarantee of fairness and equality in matters of immigration would be a dead letter if Section 212(f) permitted the President to override the carefully calibrated legislative scheme on the mere invocation of the “national interest.” More than that, the Government’s interpretation of Section 212(f) would allow the President to singlehandedly dismantle the entire body of immigration and refugee law that Congress created.
11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 19 of 34

Particularly relevant here is Congress’s decision in the INA to impose precise requirements, procedures, quotas, and priorities for immigrant visas, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152–53, and refugee admissions, id. §§ 1157–58. If the President wishes to alter the number of refugees the United States will accept, he may do so only after “appropriate consultation” with Congress — a statutory term defined to mean meeting “with members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives to review the refugee situation” and “to discuss” certain matters specified by statute. Id. §§ 1157(a)(2), (b), (e). Similarly, the INA includes a number of provisions designed to favor family reunification in the application and processing of immigration matters. See id. §§ 1101(a)(27), 1153(a)–(e), 1154(a); S. Rep. No. 89-748, at 13 (“Reunification of families is to be the foremost consideration.”). These provisions reflect not just a considered judgment by Congress to support family relations, but also a decision to adhere to the international legal obligations of the United States. See DHS, Annual Flow Report, Refugees and Asylees: 2005 (Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 29, Ex. BB) (“U.S. asylum policy is governed by the Refugee Act of 1980. The Refugee Act established a statutory process for granting asylum consistent with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.”).7
Congress could not have intended these and countless other detailed provisions — including, notably, provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of nationality and protect the right to family integrity — to be mere suggestions that the President could override by

7

See Final Act of the 1951 U.N. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees

and Stateless Persons, Recommendation B (Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 30, Ex. CC) (declaring that “the

unity of the family . . . is an essential right of the refugee” and calling upon governments to “take

the necessary measures for the protection of the refugee’s family”); see also Sampson v. Fed.

Republic of Ger., 250 F.3d 1145, 1151 (7th Cir. 2001) (“‘[A]n act of Congress ought never to be

construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains[.]’” (quoting

Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804))).

12

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 20 of 34

unreviewable executive fiat, on the simple proclamation that the “national interest” is different than what Congress had declared in a federal statute. As Justice Scalia colorfully explained for a unanimous Supreme Court, Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes,” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001), or time-bombs in carefully designed legislative schemes. See also FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159–60 (2000) (holding Congress did not intend to permit the FDA to regulate tobacco by granting it the authority to regulate “drugs”). The INA should not be “interpret[ed] … to negate [its] own stated purposes.” N.Y. State Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 419–20 (1973).
Presidents have never before understood their authority under Section 212(f) to be unlimited in the way the Government now claims. In the long history of presidential proclamations based on section 212(f), not one has categorically excluded all aliens from a particular nation — until now. See Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. J at 6–10; see also Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. X.8 The “lack of historical precedent” for the Executive Order is a “telling indication” that it is unlawful. Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083, 1099 (2016) (internal quotation mark omitted). The Executive Order — insofar as it puts on hold the entire refugee application process and indefinitely disallows Syrians entry into the United States — should be set aside as inconsistent with the INA. Defendants should be ordered to consider Plaintiff’s derivative application consistent with the INA.

8

President Reagan did issue a proclamation excluding many Cuban nationals, but that

proclamation did not categorically exclude Cubans as immigrants and did not exclude them as

nonimmigrants at all. Pres. Proc. No. 5517 (Aug. 22, 1986). It was also a direct response to

Cuba’s suspension of immigration between Cuba and the United States. Id. It thus provides no

support for the Executive Order, which categorically excludes aliens from seven different nations

as immigrants and nonimmigrants based on nothing more than a generalized and unsupported

assertion of risk.

13

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 21 of 34
B. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNLAWFULLY INTERFERES WITH PLAINTIFF’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY, IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS Even if the Executive Order could be justified on statutory grounds as a valid exercise of
authority under the INA, it would still be unlawful because, in suspending Plaintiff’s derivative application and barring entry of Syrians, it violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The Executive Order indeed violates both substantive and procedural due process because it unfairly deprives Plaintiff of the fundamental right of family integrity, recognized by the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit in a number of cases, and does so without adequate justification or procedures.
1. As the Supreme Court long ago explained, the Fifth Amendment’s protection from deprivations of liberty without due process protects “not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).
Consistent with that instruction, the Supreme Court has since explained that the Due Process Clause protects against unwarranted governmental interference with numerous aspects of the marital relationship. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485–86 (1965) (right of married couples to contraception); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (right to marry); Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2599 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage). It also protects against interferences with the right to rear children: “[T]he right of parents to ‘establish a home and bring up children’ and ‘to control the education of their own’” is “perhaps the oldest of the
14

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 22 of 34
fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e] [Supreme] Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); see Meyer, 262 U.S. at 402–03 (recognizing right of parents to have their child learn the German language); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534–35 (1925) (recognizing fundamental right “of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”).
These cases and others establish that the Due Process Clause provides heightened protection against government interference with the integrity of the unitary family. Government conduct that interferes with this fundamental right must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. E.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 368 (1978); Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 500 (1977); see also Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000, 1018–19 (7th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases recognizing the “constitutional right to familial relations”).
2. The Executive Order undoubtedly contravenes the prohibition against unwarranted governmental interferences with the “constitutional right to familial relations.” Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1018. It interferes with Plaintiff’s fundamental right to family integrity by making it impossible for him to reunite with his wife and young child. It suspends the derivative asylum process — enacted by Congress to spare asylees the choice between further persecution or family disintegration — and indefinitely bars all means of entry to his wife and child. Moreover, Plaintiff cannot return to them without facing further torture and likely death, as the Government found in granting him asylum. To interfere with Plaintiff’s fundamental right of family integrity, therefore, the Executive Order must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. See, e.g., Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 368.
15

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 23 of 34
But the Executive Order flunks that test because it is both over- and under-inclusive with respect to its purported justification of protecting against the entry of terrorists. The Executive Order is overbroad because it ensnares immigrants with no possible connection to terrorism. Plaintiff’s daughter is a case in point: the Executive Order here serves only to protect America from the non-existent threat of a sick three-year-old girl entering the country to be reunited with her father. Simply put, “[i]t is beyond reasonable argument to contend that a policy that purportedly deters [Syrian] four year olds from resettling . . . is narrowly tailored to serve the . . . asserted interest in public safety.” Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 165 F. Supp. 3d 718, 737 (S.D. Ind.), aff’d, 838 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2016).
The Executive Order is also drastically under-inclusive. As the Seventh Circuit explained recently in Pence, “no Syrian refugees have been arrested or prosecuted for terrorist acts or attempts in the United States.” Pence, 838 F.3d at 904. Nor have any fatal terrorist attacks been committed in the United States by a national of any of the seven countries covered by Section 3(c) in at least the past quarter century. See Breidenbach Decl. ¶¶ 12, 20, Exs. K, S. Conversely, nationals from other countries not subject to the Executive Order have perpetrated fatal attacks in the United States in the last two decades. Id. None of the perpetrators of the September 11th, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, or Orlando attacks came from Syria or any of the other six affected countries.
The Government has argued in other cases challenging the Executive Order that its conduct must only be “facially legitimate and bona fide” where immigration is at stake, even where the action interferes with a plaintiff’s fundamental rights. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 807 (1977); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972). But, as the Ninth Circuit recently held in rejecting this argument, that more limited standard of review applies only to “lawsuits
16

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 24 of 34

challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application,” not to all executive exercises of immigration authority. Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497, at *6 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017); see also Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 797– 98 (challenging statutory scheme setting out special preference immigration status to aliens who qualify as the “children” or “parents” of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents). Mandel’s deferential standard of review, tailored to Executive actions taken in reliance on preexisting law, is ill-equipped to account for the myriad interests implicated by the sweeping, unprecedented Executive Order. Trump, 2017 WL 526497, at *6.9 Mandel provides no basis to override nearly a century of cases protecting the rights of persons in the United States from unwarranted incursions into the familial unit.
3. The Executive Order also violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives Plaintiff of adequate procedures. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987) (“When government action depriving a person of life, liberty, or property survives substantive due process scrutiny, it must still be implemented in a fair manner.” (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976))). Plaintiff’s procedural due process right in his derivative asylum application is directly implicated by its deprivation of an important, fundamental liberty interest — family integrity. Cf. Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (joining

9

In any event, the Executive Order cannot pass muster even under the Mandel test.

“[P]rotecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry” is a facially legitimate reason to exclude

certain classes of aliens. But there is overwhelming evidence that the real reason for the

Executive Order is anti-Muslim animus. See infra at 20–21. Therefore, Defendants’ asserted

justification for the Executive Order is not bona fide and cannot stand. See Wong Wing Hang v.

INS, 360 F.2d 715, 719 (2d Cir. 1966) (Friendly, J.) (executive immigration decisions cannot rest

on “invidious discrimination against a particular race or group”).

17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 25 of 34
the First, Second, and D.C. Circuits to hold that a U.S. citizen raising a constitutional challenge
to the denial of a visa to her husband is entitled to a limited judicial inquiry regarding the reason for the decision).10
There are three general factors that courts weigh to determine whether the process at
issue is constitutional: (1) the private interest affected by the official actions; (2) the risk of an
erroneous deprivation of the interest and the value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural
safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens the additional or substitute procedural requirements would impose. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335.11
Whatever process is due here, the Executive Order does not provide it — it provides no process
at all, as the Ninth Circuit recently observed in denying the Government’s motion for a
temporary stay. See Trump, 2017 WL 526497, at *7 (“[T]he Government does not contend that
the Order provides for such process.”). Accordingly, the Executive Order, as applied to
Plaintiff’s pending application for derivative asylum, violates Plaintiff’s procedural due process
rights.
10 Four members of the Supreme Court recently agreed with this rule in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2142 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting). In Din, Justices Kennedy and Alito found it unnecessary to decide whether there was such a right because they believed the government had granted adequate process under the circumstances of the case. 11 Defendants have never explained why existing procedures are inadequate to consider pending derivative asylum applications. Refugees are subject to “the highest level of background and security checks of any category of traveler to the United States,” in a process that often takes years to complete, and Syrian applicants are subject to “enhanced review.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 31, Ex. DD. Indeed, the Executive Order is likely to undermine U.S. national security interests. See Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. X (Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright et al., Trump, No. 17-35105, ECF No. 28-2 (detailing how the Executive Order will endanger U.S. troops and intelligence sources; disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national-security partnerships; and “feed the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with Islam”).
18

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 26 of 34
C. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION The Executive Order also violates the Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s
guarantee of Equal Protection because it does what it was intended to do — disfavor Islam at the expense of other religions.12 The Establishment Clause’s “clearest command” is that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). “This prohibition is absolute.” Id. at 246. The Constitution’s equal protection guarantee likewise prohibits the government from discriminating based on religion. See Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 1000 (7th Cir. 2006). The Executive Order violates both of these Constitutional proscriptions; it should be set aside in its entirety because the religious message taints the entire Order.
1. The Executive Order facially discriminates based on religion. The fact that the Executive Order does not mention any religion by name is of no moment. In Larson, the Supreme Court struck down a tax provision that did not explicitly prefer any particular religion because the effect of the law was to favor well-established religious groups over new religious groups. 456 U.S. at 231–32, 246 n.23. The Executive Order should likewise be struck down. Sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Executive Order expressly prioritize members of the “minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” Because these provisions are not neutral with respect to religion, they violate the Establishment Clause. See Larson, 456 U.S. at 254 (government may not impose “burdens . . . upon particular denominations”); Kaufman v.
12 Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is materially distinct from the claim found unlikely to succeed for lack of standing in Loughhalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017). Unlike the Loughhalam plaintiffs, Plaintiff is already in the United States and is seeking admission for his family; the Executive Order thus directly affects his right to live with his wife and daughter. Plaintiff plainly has standing to enforce his own constitutional rights.
19

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 27 of 34
McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (government may not “favor[] one religion over another”).13
2. Even if the Executive Order passed muster facially, it should still be set aside. A facially neutral law violates the Establishment Clause when it “(1) lacks a legitimate secular purpose; (2) has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; or (3) fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Doe ex rel. Doe v. Elmbrook School Dist., 687 F.3d 840, 849 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)); see also School Dist. of Abingdon Twp. v. Schemp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963) (“The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution.”). Similarly, under the Equal Protection Clause, a facially neutral law that has a “disproportionately adverse effect” on a suspect classification, including a religious denomination, violates equal protection if the “impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.” Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979).
In performing these analyses, the Court may consider “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.” Church of Lukami Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540 (1993). When “openly available data supported a commonsense conclusion that a religious objective permeated the government’s action,” the action is
13 In fact, as President Trump made clear, the Executive Order was intended specifically to favor Christianity at the expense of Islam. See Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 14 (“[W]e are going to help [Christians].”).
20

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 28 of 34
unconstitutional. McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 863 (2005); see also Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265–66 (1977) (“When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, … judicial deference [to the political process] is no longer justified.”).
Here, the Executive Order’s purpose to discriminate against Muslims is not hidden; it is open and notorious. As a candidate, Mr. Trump expressed hostility toward Muslims and pledged — publicly, loudly, and repeatedly — to ban them from entering the United States. See Breidenbach Decl. ¶¶ 2–8; Trump, 2017 WL 526497, at *10 (per curiam) (citing “numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence . . . that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban”). Now that he is President, he is attempting to live up to that promise in a way that permits him to tell his supporters that he is banning Muslims from the United States while assuring the courts that he is not. But a vast swath of our nation, and indeed the world, understands the Executive Order for precisely what it is — as President Trump coyly acknowledged, “[w]e all know what [it] means.”
Yes, we do: it reflects an “official” policy “inhibiti[ng] [one] religion,” Islam. Schemp, 374 U.S. at 222. “This the Establishment Clause prohibits.” Id.14
14 The Executive Order also excessively entangles the government with religion. The Executive Order provides no guidelines for assessing what constitutes a minority religion and whether minority sects of a particular religion constitute a minority religion. For example, the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Would the Department of Homeland Security consider a Shi’ite Syrian to be a religious minority? And how would it determine a non-citizen’s religion in the first place: Public attendance of religious ceremonies? The honor system? A pop quiz? The unending questions associated with enforcement of the Executive Order make it clear that there is no justification for a governmental preference against Islam on such a wide scale.
21

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 29 of 34
D. THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES ON THE BASIS OF NATIONALITY When confronted with the fact that a religion-based “Muslim ban” is unconstitutional,
then-candidate Trump tried to pivot by characterizing his proposal as a ban that discriminates on the basis of “territory” or national origin, responding flippantly: “So you call it territories, ok? We’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria.” Breidenbach Decl. ¶ EE. Even looking past the fact that this was a change in name only, and is certainly not bona fide, this pivot from religion to nationality did nothing to alter the policy’s unconstitutionality. Indeed, classifications based on national origin are also inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985).
There can be no question that the Executive Order is facially discriminatory on the basis of national origin. The Executive Order indefinitely bans entry of refugees from just one country: Syria. Exec. Order § 5(c). It further denies all entry for non-citizens from Syria and six other identified countries. Id. § 3(c). As the Seventh Circuit recently recognized in invalidating then-Governor (now-Vice President) Pence’s denial of federal resettlement funds for Syrian refugees, such distinctions are illegal “discrimination on the basis of nationality.” Pence, 838 F.3d at 904. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Posner did not mince words:
[In defending the order, Pence] argues that his policy of excluding Syrian refugees is based not on nationality and thus is not discriminatory, but is based solely on the threat he thinks they pose to the safety of residents of Indiana. But that's the equivalent of his saying (not that he does say) that he wants to forbid black people to settle in Indiana not because they're black but because he’s afraid of them, and since race is therefore not his motive he isn't discriminating. But that of course would be racial discrimination, just as his targeting Syrian refugees is discrimination on the basis of nationality. Id. at 904–05.
22

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 30 of 34
Because the Executive Order, in prohibiting entry of Syrian refugees, discriminates on the basis of national origin, it must satisfy strict scrutiny. But defendants can offer no compelling government interest to justify such blatant discrimination. Even if the Court were to accept the Executive Order’s purported national-security justification — and, under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Pence, the Court could not — the Executive Order is, as previously explained, not narrowly tailored to advance that interest. It is both over- and under-inclusive, depriving all sorts of persons from entry into the United States regardless of their relationship to terrorism, such as Plaintiff’s wife and three-year-old daughter. See supra at 15–16.
Moreover, even a lesser level of scrutiny would not change this conclusion. “The Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group.” United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (quoting U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534–35 (1973)). The “sheer breadth” of the Executive Order — barring all Syrians indefinitely — is “so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it” — protecting the nation from terrorist entry — “that [it] seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996). The Executive Order thus lacks even “a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.” Id. E. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT JUSTIFY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BASED
ON SO-CALLED PRESIDENTIAL POWERS In other cases challenging the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that the Executive Order, however unlawful or unconstitutional it might be in other contexts, is nevertheless a valid — and unreviewable — exercise of the President’s power over foreign
23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 31 of 34
affairs. Not so. To be sure, the President receives a large degree of deference on matters concerning immigration and national security.
But the law does not permit the President to suspend constitutional or statutory mandates, even when immigration and national security are at issue. See, e.g., Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (plurality opinion). The Judiciary has a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty.” Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942). Congress’s statutory mandates, too, limit the authority of the President, and again, they do so even in the immigration and national-security context. See Zivotofsky, 135 S. Ct. at 2090 (“The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.”); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582–83 (1952) (holding the President may not seize the nation’s steel mills merely by proclamation, even upon finding that such a seizure “was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production,” and even where steel was “indispensab[le] . . . as a component of substantially all weapons and other war materials” necessary for the United States in an ongoing war).
* * * For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The material facts are not and cannot be the subject of reasonable dispute. The Executive Order is unlawful and unconstitutional. It far exceeds the President’s authority under Section 212(f) of the INA. And, contrary to both statutory and constitutional law, it discriminates on the basis of religion and nationality and interferes with Plaintiff’s fundamental right of family integrity without narrowly furthering a compelling government interest. Moreover, for all the above
24

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 32 of 34

reasons, agency enforcement of the Executive Order is unlawful under the Administrative

Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C). The Court should enter summary judgment in

Plaintiff’s favor.

II.

THE COURT SHOULD ENTER TEMPORARY AND/OR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EXPEDITION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Given Plaintiff’s showing on the merits, the immediate threat to himself and to his wife

and young child, and the balance of the equities, the Court should not just enter a permanent

injunction at the conclusion of briefing. It should also immediately enter a temporary restraining

order or preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo that existed before the President signed

the Executive Order, just as countless other courts have done in cases challenging the Order.

1. As a general matter, the mere establishment of a constitutional violation of the sort at

issue here establishes both irreparable injury and that the balance of the equities supports entry of

an injunction. Indeed, constitutional violations are presumed to result in irreparable harm. Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 699 (7th Cir. 2011).15 Similarly, it is “always in the public

interest” to enjoin unconstitutional conduct. Joelner v. Vill. of Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620

(7th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he public interest is not harmed by

preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a statute that is probably unconstitutional.” Alvarez,

679 F.3d at 590; Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n.3 (7th Cir. 1978) (stating that

remedying a “continuing constitutional violation . . . certainly would serve the public interest”).

15 See, e.g., Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (First Amendment); Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 1978); Milwaukee Cty. Pavers Ass’n v. Fiedler, 707 F. Supp. 1016, 1032 (W.D. Wis.), modified, 710 F. Supp. 1532 (W.D. Wis. 1989) (equal protection); Jessen v. Vill. of Lyndon Station, 519 F. Supp. 1183, 1189 (W.D. Wis. 1981) (equal protection, due process, and First Amendment).
25

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 33 of 34
Given Plaintiff’s strong showing on the merits, the Court should enter immediate relief now to preserve the status quo, and it should expedite consideration of the merits of Plaintiff’s action.
2. But this case presents a particularly pronounced showing that immediate injunctive relief is warranted. Indeed, as courts in this and other Circuits have recognized, separation from one’s wife and child constitutes irreparable harm.16 Plaintiff has not seen his wife in three years. He has not experienced any of the crucial “firsts” in his daughter’s life: her first smile, her first steps, her first words. He could not be with his family to bury and mourn his son; he must grieve alone. And while Plaintiff’s derivative asylum application is suspended, Aleppo remains a humanitarian disaster. Its residents, including Plaintiff’s family, lack access to adequate food, shelter, and other basic services. Plaintiff’s daughter is ill without access to basic medical care. The SAA, whose members threatened to rape Plaintiff’s wife, is still active and in control of the neighborhood where she remains in hiding, too terrified to risk going outside absent an emergency. As long as the Executive Order is in effect, Plaintiff will live every day not knowing if he will ever see his family again. His injury is not subject to serious dispute.
For the same reasons, the balance of equities strongly favors the entry of immediate relief today. It is not hyperbole to say that such relief is a matter of life and death. By contrast, Defendants have no cognizable interest in continuing to implement an Executive Order that violates both federal law and the United States Constitution. See United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 726 (1971); KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1272
16 E.g., Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2011); Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477, 484 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Ramirez-Vicario v. Achim, No. 04 C 0301, 2004 WL 392573, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2004); Omar v. Kerry, No. 15-CV-01760-JSC, 2015 WL 5964901, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015); Ping Ping Zhou v. Kane, No. CV 07-0785-PHX-DGC (ECV), 2007 WL 1559938, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2007).
26

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 9 Filed: 02/13/17 Page 34 of 34

(11th Cir. 2006). Nor does Defendants’ pretextual “national security” interest outweigh Plaintiff’s interests, given the Executive Order’s failure to advance that purported interest in a tailored way. See supra at 15–16; Trump, 2017 WL 526497, at *10 (finding no harm to Government from stay of Executive Order because there is “no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States”).
CONCLUSION Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to enter summary judgment in his favor. In the meantime, or in the alternative, the Court should enter a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order and ordering Defendants to finish processing Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition.

Dated: New York, New York February 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
By: /s/ Vincent Levy Vincent Levy (vlevy@hsgllp.com) Lauren Giudice (lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp.com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp.com) Matthew V.H. Noller (mnoller@hsgllp.com) Sarah Sternlieb (ssternlieb@hsgllp.com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp.com) (law clerk – New York State Bar admission pending)
750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151
Attorneys for Plaintiff
27

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN _________________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

17-cv-112-wmc

DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________________

The court is in receipt of John Doe’s motion for a temporary restraining order,

preliminary injunction and summary judgment. (Dkt. #8.) As with his initial pleading,

plaintiff should effectuate service on defendants as soon as possible. Until then, the

court will at least assume that the United States has actual notice of the complaint and

motion, in light of an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of

Wisconsin being listed on the docket. On or before noon on Friday, February 17, 2017,

all timely-served defendants, SHALL file a response to the following three questions: (1)

what is the current status of plaintiff’s request for derivative asylum for his wife and

surviving daughter?;1 (2) did the United States continue processing refugee/asylee relative petitions for beneficiaries residing in Syria after issuance of the January 27, 2017, Executive Order?; and (3) if not, does the United States take the position that the preliminary injunction entered by the court in Washington v. Trump, No. C170141LJR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017), enjoin the Order’s enforcement as to the processing of refugee/asylee relative petitions for beneficiaries residing in Syria? After receipt of this initial filing by defendants, the court will determine the next steps in terms of briefing and a possible hearing.
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed anonymously. (Dkt. #2.) The court finds that plaintiff’s right to privacy, specifically to protect himself, his wife and daughter from retaliation, outweighs the public interest in knowing plaintiff’s actual name in these proceedings. See Doe v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 445, 446 (7th Cir. 2007) (approving district court’s decision permitting plaintiff to proceed anonymously where the plaintiff would likely be killed if he returned to the country from which he fled). Accordingly, that motion is GRANTED.
Entered this 14th day of February, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge
1 The appropriate government official should coordinate with plaintiff’s counsel to obtain plaintiff’s name. Defendants should maintain plaintiff’s anonymity in their filings.
2

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 25 Filed: 02/17/17 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff, v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, JOHN F. KELLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, LORI SCIALABBA, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, REX W. TILLERSON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER 17-cv-112-wmc

In response to this court’s order requiring answers to certain questions, defendants represent that (1) plaintiff’s refugee/asylee relative petitions were not affected by the Executive Order and are being processed on an expedited basis; and (2) the processing of refugee/asylee relative petitions more generally resumed when the Washington injunction was issued, consistent with the USCIS memorandum attached as Exhibit A to the response. (Defs.’ Resp. (dkt. #23) 5-6.) Moreover, defendants reiterate their position that the Executive Order has been effectively withdrawn, pending issuance of a revised order. (Id. at 4.)
In light of these representations, plaintiff withdrew his request for emergency relief during this afternoon’s status conference. In addition, the court determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is MOOT at this time, or at most currently without merit based as it is on a single, vague representation to the contrary. (Pl.’s Aff. (dkt. #11) ¶ 23 (“My understanding is that the application is once again at the Nebraska office but remains unprocessed.”).)

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 25 Filed: 02/17/17 Page 2 of 2
This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff renewing the motion. Indeed, plaintiff may seek discovery confirming defendants’ representations as to the processing of his petitions or other evidence that his petitions are not being considered in the ordinary course. Moreover, plaintiff may amend his pleading, renew his request for emergency relief and/or seek summary judgment if either discovery belies defendants’ representations or a revised Executive Order is implemented that plaintiff maintains impacts his petitions in violation of his constitutional rights.
A telephonic status conference shall be held in this matter on March 22, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff to initiate call to chambers at 608-264-5087. Defendants need not respond to the pending, or any amended, complaint until a date to be set at that conference.
Entered this 17th day of February, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge
2

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112 Chief Judge William M. Conley AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff is a Sunni Muslim who, after being fully vetted by U.S. immigration authorities, was granted asylum status because of the torture and religious persecution he had suffered in Syria. He thereafter filed derivative asylum petitions to reunite with his wife and his only surviving child, a three-year-old daughter he has not seen since March 2014, who remain in war-torn Syria. 2. President Trump’s efforts to impose an immigration ban by executive order are threatening to stop Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petitions in their tracks. On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which suspended entry of Syrian nationals into the United States. As the Government has acknowledged in this Court, it thereafter stopped processing derivative asylum

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 23
petitions. The Government resumed processing those petitions after numerous federal courts enjoined enforcement of provisions of the President’s first executive order.
3. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued an identically-titled second executive order (the “Executive Order”), which is scheduled to go into effect on March 16, 2017, and will again suspend entry of Syrian nationals into the United States. The Executive Order, like its predecessor, effectuates President Trump’s long-standing campaign promise of implementing a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” It also unlawfully and unconstitutionally prevents Plaintiff from reuniting with his wife and young daughter, and this Court should set it aside.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff John Doe was granted asylum status in May 2016 and, eight months later, filed derivative asylum petitions for his wife and daughter. These petitions are pending. Plaintiff resides in the Western District of Wisconsin. With the Court’s leave, he is proceeding anonymously to protect his wife and daughter from harm that they stand to suffer in Aleppo, where they currently reside, should Plaintiff’s identity be revealed. 5. Defendant Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. President Trump signed the Executive Orders that are the subject of this action. He is sued in his official capacity. 6. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Kelly is responsible for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Executive Orders that are the subject of this action. He is sued in his official capacity. 7. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department within the U.S. federal government. Its functions include regulating entry into the United States and granting asylees prior approval to travel internationally. It is also responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 23
8. Defendant Lori Scialabba is the Acting Director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. She is sued in her official capacity.
9. Defendant U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is an agency within DHS whose primary functions include adjudication of asylum and derivative asylum claims.
10. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the U.S. Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has authority to determine and implement certain asylum procedures for non-citizens. Defendant Tillerson is sued in his official capacity.
11. Defendant U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) is responsible for, inter alia, facilitation of issuance of visas for asylees and derivative asylees seeking entry into the United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. There is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under Article II of the Constitution, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1182(f), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706. Additionally, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (providing jurisdiction in civil actions against the United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (providing jurisdiction to compel officers and employees of the above-listed federal agencies to do her or his duty). This Court has power to award the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202), the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706), and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 13. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district.
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 23
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. Plaintiff is Granted Asylum Status and Files Derivative Asylum Petitions
14. Plaintiff fled Syria to escape near-certain death at the hands of two sectarian military forces, the Sunni-aligned Free Syrian Army (“FSA”) fighting against the Assad regime and the Alawite-aligned Syrian Arab Army fighting for the Assad regime (“SAA”). The FSA and SAA were vying for territorial control of Aleppo and both targeted Plaintiff. The FSA targeted him because Plaintiff lived in a part of Aleppo controlled by the SAA, and the FSA wrongly assumed that Plaintiff was sympathetic to the SAA. The SAA targeted Plaintiff because of his religious faith and because he travelled to FSA-controlled territory to manage his family’s business.
15. Members of the FSA and SAA extorted, falsely imprisoned, and tortured Plaintiff, and they threatened Plaintiff with death. Members of the SAA also threatened to rape his wife. Following torture and imprisonment at the hands of the SAA, the FSA placed Plaintiff on a “kill list” and the SAA attempted to conscript him. Plaintiff fled Syria at the urging of his friends and family.
16. Upon arriving in the United States in March 2014, Plaintiff requested asylum, and a USCIS officer determined that Plaintiff has established a credible fear of returning to Syria. Plaintiff filed an initial Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with USCIS and awaited a response, eager to find a way to bring his wife and two children to safety in the United States.
17. By summer 2015, with Plaintiff’s asylum application still pending, the security situation in Syria further deteriorated. In July 2015, Plaintiff’s three-year-old son fell three floors to his death while attempting to escape militia rocket fire that hit his home. Following his son’s death, Plaintiff filed a petition for Humanitarian Parole with USCIS in an attempt to secure the
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 23
lives and wellbeing of his wife and daughter. That petition was rejected and Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended asylum application.
18. On May 27, 2016, a USCIS Immigration Judge in Chicago granted Plaintiff asylum. In so ruling, the Immigration Court made a finding that returning Plaintiff to Syria would threaten his life or freedom and would thus violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the INA. DHS did not appeal the decision, which became final at the end of June 2016.
19. On July 5, 2016, having received asylum status, Plaintiff filed Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions with the USCIS under Form I-730. The petitions sought derivative asylum for his wife and daughter, pursuant to INA § 208(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 208.21.
20. Prior to January 2017, Defendants processed Plaintiff’s petitions according to standard legal procedures. USCIS’s Nebraska Service Center initially processed Plaintiff’s petitions and evaluated whether they adequately established a legally cognizable relationship (spousal and parent) between Plaintiff and his beneficiaries. Plaintiff was never notified of any deficiencies in his petitions, and his petitions were referred to a regional USCIS office for a thorough security evaluation, which they cleared.
21. In the normal course, Plaintiff’s petitions would have continued being processed. Specifically, a USCIS Officer at the Nebraska Service Center would make a final determination regarding the petitions and, assuming they were approved, the petitions would have been routed to the Department of State’s National Visa Center. See Second Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Second Breidenbach Decl.”) Ex. TT. After additional processing at the National Visa Center, the approved I-730s would have been forwarded to a U.S. Embassy or consulate for an in-person interview, in which a USCIS Officer or a consular officer acting on
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 23
behalf of USCIS would confirm the identify and eligibility of Plaintiff’s wife and daughter. Id. From there, USCIS would arrange for Plaintiff’s wife and daughter to travel to the United States and provide them with visas, referred to as V92 documents, with which they would have been permitted to travel to the United States. Id. Finally, at a port of entry in the United States, a Customs and Border Patrol Officer would have made a final determination to allow them to enter the country. Id.
22. President Trump seeks to change all that. II. President Trump Issues Two Executive Orders Banning Entry Into The United States
A. President Trump Runs on a Platform of Banning or Limiting Muslim Immigration into the United States.
23. President Trump’s first January 27, 2017 executive order, like its recent March 6 successor, effectuated President Trump’s campaign promise, made in a December 7, 2015 press release, to enact a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” See Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Summary Judgment, Feb. 14, 2017, ECF No. 13 (“Breidenbach Decl.”) Ex. A. The press release continued: “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.” Id.
24. The next day, during an interview discussing his Muslim ban policy, Trump confirmed a reporter’s characterization that airline and U.S. government officials would ask people seeking to enter the United States, “Are you Muslim?” “[I]f they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. B.
25. During his campaign, Trump consistently adhered to the policy of banning Muslims from U.S. soil, stating on March 9, 2016 that “Islam hates us.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. C.
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 23
26. Trump refused to distinguish between the Muslim faith and Muslim terrorists, saying that “[i]t’s very hard to separate [radical Islam and Islam itself], because you don’t know who is who. . . . There’s a sickness going on that’s unbelievable. And honestly, you have to get to the bottom of it.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. C.
27. At a nationally televised Republican debate the next day, Trump claimed that “large portions of a group of people, of Islam, . . . want to use very, very harsh means. Let me go further. Women are treated horribly. . . . Women are treated horribly, and other things are happening that are very, very bad.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. D.
28. On June 13, 2016, Trump reiterated his promise to ban all Muslims entering this country until “we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. F.
29. On June 14, 2016, at a campaign rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, Trump attacked “[t]he children of Muslim immigrant parents,” stating, “they’re responsible for a growing number . . . of terrorist attacks.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. G.
30. On July 17, 2016, in an interview with 60 Minutes, when confronted with the fact that a “Muslim ban” would be unconstitutional, Trump responded, “So you call it territories, ok? We’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. EE.
31. In a foreign policy speech delivered on August 15, 2016, Trump noted that the United States could not “adequate[ly] screen[]” immigrants because it admits “about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. I. During the speech, Trump proposed creating an ideological screening test for immigration applicants, which would “screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles — or who
7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 23
believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.” Id. During the speech, he referred to his proposal as “extreme, extreme vetting.” Id.
32. On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States. In his first television interview as President, he again referred to his plan for “extreme vetting: we’re not letting people in if we think there’s even a little chance of some problem.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. L.
33. On January 27, 2017, President Trump gave an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network. During that interview, President Trump confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees, asserting (falsely) that “[i]f you were a Muslim you could come in [to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible . . . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. M.
B. President Trump Signs the First Executive Order, Resulting in Numerous Legal Challenges, Including the Instant Case.
34. On January 27, 2017, one week after being sworn in, President Trump signed Executive Order 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. N.
35. During a signing ceremony for the Executive Order on January 27, 2017, President Trump stated, “Protection of the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. P. He then added: “We all know what that means.” Id.
36. The first executive order imposed a series of illegal and unconstitutional limitations on the manner in which non-citizens may seek and obtain entry into the United States. President Trump used it to suspend entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries referred to in INA § 217(a)(12), 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), including Syria, after
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 23
proclaiming that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. P § 3(a), (c). The first order also suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”) for 120 days and directed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to favor non-Muslims for entry once USRAP resumed. Id. § 5(a), (e). Finally, the first order proclaimed that entry of Syrian refugees is “detrimental to the interests of the United States” and suspended their entry “indefinitely.” Id. § 5(c).
37. The initial order received wide-ranging condemnation from national security experts, government officials, and members of civil society.
38. In a recent joint declaration, ten former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government affirmed, under penalty of perjury, that “[a]s a national security measure, the [first executive order] is unnecessary. National security-based immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on (1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed, or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. X. These officials further declared that “[r]ebranding a proposal first advertised as a ‘Muslim Ban’ as ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.” Id. ¶ 9.
39. Similarly, then-Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates broke with the President in a Department of Justice letter circulated on January 30, 2017, in which she stated that she was not “convinced that the Executive Order is lawful” and that, “for as long as [she] is the Acting
9

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 23
Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order[.]” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. U. Ms. Yates clearly indicated that she based her decision in part on “statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of [the] Executive Order[.]” Id. She was promptly removed.
40. If there was any doubt as to the Executive Order’s anti-Muslim animus, it was dispelled on January 29, 2017 by Rudy Giuliani, who served as a surrogate during Trump’s campaign. In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Giuliani explained “the whole history” of the Executive Order: “[W]hen [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.’” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. Q.
41. Numerous plaintiffs across the country brought over two dozen cases in federal court challenging the January executive order. In one of the cases, the State of Washington and co-plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting nationwide enforcement at “United States borders and ports of entry” of Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c) in their entireties and of Section 5(e) to the extent that section “purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The temporary restraining order also prohibited the government from “proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities” under Section 5(e). Id. A threejudge panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s request to stay the temporary restraining order per curiam. Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017).
42. John Doe filed the instant action on February 13, seeking to permanently enjoin enforcement of the January 27 order. At the time of filing, information received from the
10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 11 of 23
Government led John Doe to believe that his derivative asylum petitions were not being processed, notwithstanding the TRO in Washington. This Court ordered the Government to answer three questions regarding Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petitions by February 17 at noon.
43. Just before midnight on February 16, the Government asked Plaintiff’s counsel to stipulate to a one-week extension after representing that the Government had “been able to confirm very little about the pending I-730 petitions” and was “unable to fully respond to the Court’s questions at this time.” Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. UU. Plaintiff’s counsel declined, noting the extreme danger in which Plaintiff’s wife and daughter found themselves. Id.
44. On February 17, the Government reversed its position and filed a response. It admitted that it had stopped processing derivative asylum applications once President Trump signed the January 27 order but stated that it had resumed processing such applications (including Plaintiff’s) following the nationwide injunction entered in the Washington case. The Government also represented that President Trump would be signing a revised executive order promptly. Defs.’ Response to Court’s Order, Feb. 17, 2017, Dkt. No. 23. Because of these representations, Plaintiff withdrew his request for a temporary restraining order, and the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s other requests as moot, noting that Plaintiff would remain free to seek relief from the Court anew should the situation change. Order, Feb. 17, 2017, Dkt. No. 25.
45. After the Government’s February 17 response in this action and before the current Executive Order issued, Plaintiff was notified that the USCIS Officer at the Nebraska Service Center has approved his petitions and would be forwarding the approved documents to the National Visa Center for the travel document portion of the I-730 process. But for President Trump’s new Executive Order, interviews are to take place in Amman, Jordan.
11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 12 of 23
46. In light of these positive developments, Plaintiff began arranging for safe passage for his wife and daughter through Syria and to Jordan.
C. President Trump Signs a Revised Executive Order. 47. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a revised Executive Order. See Breidenbach Decl. Ex. FF (the “Executive Order”). 48. Like its earlier incarnation, this Executive Order is motivated by religion- and nationality-based animus, making it both illegal and unconstitutional. As the President’s senior advisor, Stephen Miller, stated before the new Executive Order was signed, “[o]ne of the big differences that you are going to see in the [March] executive order is that it is going to be responsive to the judicial ruling which didn’t exist previously. . . . And so these are mostly minor, technical differences. Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country.” Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. II. 49. In the days after President Trump signed the first executive order, President Trump and senior officials in his Administration defended the initial order and its hasty, chaotic roll-out on national security grounds. On January 30, 2017, President Trump tweeted: “If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out there!” Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. GG. White House spokesman Sean Spicer stated: “At the end of the day, what was the other option? To rush it out quickly, telegraph it five days so that people could rush into this country and undermine the safety of our nation?” Id. ¶ 4. On February 9, 2017, President Trump claimed he had sought a one-month delay between signing and implementation but was told by his advisors that “you can’t do that because then people are gonna pour in before the toughness.” Id. Ex. HH. 50. By the time the current Executive Order was issued, more than a month after the former order was halted by the courts, the Administration had tried — and failed — to create after
12

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 13 of 23
the fact a record to justify the travel ban. See Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. MM. One DHS study concluded, among other things, that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.” See id. Ex. JJ. That study also stated that of the eighty-two U.S. residents DHS had identified as having been involved in terrorism-related offenses since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, none came from Syria. See id. A second DHS study stated, among other things, that “most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns.” See id. Ex. KK.
51. In signing the new order, President Trump all but dispensed with the pretext of the need for immediate issuance for the sake of national security. The President had promised prompt issuance of the Executive Order, but then delayed its signing repeatedly, in contradiction to his earlier explanation that the Muslim Ban must be immediately implemented. Indeed, the media reported last week, after President Trump’s address to the Congress, that, “[s]igning the executive order Wednesday, as originally indicated by the White House, would have undercut the favorable coverage [of President Trump’s address]” and quoted a White House official to say that “[w]e want the (executive order) to have its own ‘moment.’” Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. LL. III. The Executive Order Indefinitely Separates Plaintiff from His Immediate Family and
Disfavors His Religion A. Relevant Provisions of the Revised Executive Order. 52. Section 1 of the Executive Order states that its purpose is to “protect [the United States’] citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals.” Section 1(i) states that the President was “revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial
13

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 14 of 23
concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.”
53. Section 2(c) of new Executive Order suspends the “entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen” — six of the seven countries that were designated in the first order, with Iraq now omitted — for a period of “90 days from the effective date of this order,” just like the first order. The 90-day period is subject to extension.
54. Section 3 provides for various exceptions and potential waivers to Section 2’s travel ban. Under Section 3(a), “the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who: (i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order; (ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 27, 2017; and (iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.” See Executive Order § 3(a)(i)-(iii).
55. Section 3(b) lists categorical “exceptions” from Section 2: lawful permanent residents, foreign nationals who are admitted or paroled into the United States “on or after the effective date of this order, foreign nationals with “a document other than a visa . . . that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document,” dual nationals traveling on passports issued by a non-designated country, foreign nationals traveling on certain diplomatic visas, and foreign nationals who have been granted asylum as well as refugees who have been admitted to the United States. Executive Order § 3(b)(i)-(iv).
56. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order provides that “a consular officer, or as appropriate, the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . may, in the consular officer’s or the CBP official’s discretion, decide on a case-by-case basis to authorize the
14

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 15 of 23
issuance of a visa to, or to permit the entry of, a foreign national for whom entry is otherwise suspended” if he or she determines that “denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship . . . [and the individual’s] entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest.” Id. § 3(c).
57. Like the first Executive Order, the new Executive Order provides for an expansion of its immigration ban to nationals from additional countries in the future. Section 2(a) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State as well as the Director of National Intelligence, to “conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA . . . to determine that the individual is not a security or public safety threat.” Executive Order § 2(a). Those officials are instructed to submit a report on “the results of the worldwide review” to the President, as well as “a list of countries that do not provide adequate information,” within 20 days of the effective date of the Executive Order. Id. § 2(b). The Secretary of State is then instructed to “request that all foreign governments that do not supply [the necessary] information regarding their nationals begin providing it within 50 days of notification.” Id. § 2(d). After that 50-day period, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, “shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion” in the travel ban. Id. § 2(e). Those officials are also authorized to “submit to the President,” at “any point after the submission of the list” of countries recommended for inclusion, “the names of additional countries recommended for similar treatment.” Id. § 2(f).
58. Section 6 of the Executive Order suspends USRAP and the “travel” of all “refugees” to the United States for a period of 120 days, and suspends all “decisions” by the
15

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 16 of 23
Secretary of Homeland Security on applications for refugee status for 120 days. Id. § 6(a). After those 120 days are over, “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined” that “additional procedures”—identified by those officials as being necessary “to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat” to the United States—have been “implemented” and “are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.” Id. § 6(a).
59. Under Section 14, the revised Executive Order takes effect on March 16, 2017. B. The Revised Executive Order, Once Effective, Will Interfere with Plaintiff’s
Derivative Petitions and with His Ability to be Reunited with His Wife and Daughter. 60. In material respects, the new Executive Order mirrors the operative provisions of the prior executive order. As the Government informed this Court, the relevant agencies stopped processing derivative asylum applications once the prior order was signed and until it was enjoined. 61. Question-and-answer guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security indicates that the Government will follow the same approach under the revised Executive Order: Can the exception for refugee admission be used for Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (Form I- 730) cases where a family member is requesting a beneficiary follow to join? No. Individuals who already have valid visas or travel documents that permit them to travel to the United States are exempt from the Executive Order. To the extent that an individual does not yet have such documents, please contact the Department of State. Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. RR. 62. The Executive Order also makes clear on its face that, once it goes into effect, it will halt the processing of Plaintiff’s derivative petitions. As Syrian nationals, Plaintiff’s wife and
16

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 17 of 23
daughter will be barred from receiving a visa and from entry for 90 days under Section 2(c), unless they can affirmatively obtain a waiver. And, after the 90-day ban, his family risks an even longer bar from entering the United States since, under Section 2(e), the Secretary of Homeland Security is required to present President Trump with a “list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit . . . entry” of people from identified countries until the Secretary of Homeland Security decides otherwise.
63. Plaintiff’s wife and daughter also fall under the ban’s scope under Section 3(a) because, by the Government’s own admission, they will not be able to obtain valid visas by March 16, and so also cannot be present in the U.S. by that date. See Breidenbach Decl. UU. Moreover, they did not have valid visas as of 5:00 PM on January 27, 2017.
64. Nor do Plaintiff’s wife and daughter fall within the scope of any of the exemptions in Section 3(b). Plaintiff’s wife and daughter are not — and will not be by the effective date of the Executive Order — lawful permanent residents, admitted or parole foreign nationals, travel document holders, dual nationals, diplomatic visa holders, or asylees.
65. It also appears that Plaintiff’s petitions will be affected by the suspension of USRAP, given that USRAP is involved in the processing of I-730 applicants, although the Government has previously suggested this might not be the case.
66. Although the Government might suggest that nothing stops Plaintiff’s wife and child from applying for a “waiver” under Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, in order to obtain a waiver under Section 3(c), Plaintiff’s wife and child would need to “demonstrate[] . . . that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest.” Although this case undoubtedly involves an undue burden, Plaintiff’s wife and child should not be required to make
17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 18 of 23
this showing, or to show that their entry “would be in the national interest,” given that, as set forth below, the Executive Order exceeds the scope of the President’s authority and is unconstitutional.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 67. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 68. The Executive Order exceeds the President’s lawful authority under Section 212(f) of the INA, as interpreted in the context of the INA as a whole and as limited by specific provisions of the INA. 69. For example, the INA prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). The Executive Order, both facially and as implemented, discriminates on the basis of nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence in the issuance of visas, in violation of the INA. 70. Defendants’ violations of the INA have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiff by, among other injuries, indefinitely denying him access to his family. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION OF THE APA 71. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 72. The APA prohibits federal agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, or contrary to statute. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C). 73. In implementing the Executive Order, as alleged herein, Defendant federal agencies have acted in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, thereby violating the APA.
18

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 19 of 23
74. Defendants’ violations of the APA have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiff by, among other injuries, indefinitely denying him access to his family.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FIFTH AMENDMENT – DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 75. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 76. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving individuals of their fundamental rights and important liberty interests without due process of law. 77. Plaintiff’s fundamental rights include his right to the “integrity of [his] family unit.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972); see also Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503–05 (1977) (“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”). Plaintiff’s fundamental rights as a parent also include his right to the custody, care, and management of his daughter and the right to “give [his daughter] religious training and to encourage [her] in the practice of religious belief.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 165 (1944). 78. The Executive Order directly and substantially infringes on Plaintiff’s fundamental rights. Plaintiff cannot return to Syria without facing near-certain death. And Plaintiff’s wife and daughter cannot come to the United States because their derivative applications will be suspended by the Executive Order once it becomes effective. 79. The Due Process Clause forbids Defendants from infringing on Plaintiff’s fundamental rights unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
19

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 20 of 23
governmental interest. On its face and as applied, the Executive Order fails this test. It is not narrowly tailored to protect national security interests — it blocks all persons from Syria from entry into the United States, regardless of their relationship to terrorism. The overbreadth and irrationality of the Executive Order is strikingly apparent here: it blocks a three-year-old child from entry, stranding her in a country that DHS determined is too dangerous for her father. It is a “Muslim ban” by another name.
80. The Executive Order also infringes on Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights. Plaintiff has a liberty interest to live together with his wife and child in the United States. See, e.g., Stanley, 405 U.S. at 651. This liberty interest flows from the solicitude granted marriage and family integrity by American historical tradition and is evident in various provisions of immigration law, including the federal government’s derivative asylum process. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment vests Plaintiff with procedural due process rights that include the right to have his application for derivative asylum fairly adjudicated. By suspending his derivative asylum application on the basis of national origin and religion, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his liberty interests for illegitimate reasons and without constitutionally adequate procedures.
81. Accordingly, in issuing and implementing the Executive Order, Defendants violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION 82. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 83. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees aliens living within the United States equal protection of the law.
20

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 21 of 23
84. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order classifies individuals and targets Plaintiff for discriminatory treatment on the basis of national origin and religion without lawful justification.
85. The Executive Order was motivated by discriminatory animus and has a disparate impact on members of the Muslim faith.
86. The Executive Order’s discriminatory terms and application are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
87. Through their actions, Defendants violated and are violating the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 88. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 89. The true purpose of the Executive Order is hostility toward Islam. The proffered secular purpose, national security, is a sham. 90. The Executive Order was motivated by discriminatory animus and has a disparate impact members of the Muslim faith. It therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by not pursuing a course of neutrality with respect to different religions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants as follows: (a) Declare that the Executive Order, including Section 2(c), is unlawful and
unconstitutional facially and as applied to Plaintiff’s pending petitions for derivative asylum for his wife and daughter;
21

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 22 of 23
(b) Declare that Defendants are obligated to promptly and fairly adjudicate Plaintiff’s petitions for derivative asylum solely in accordance with preexisting law, including INA § 208(b)(3), 8 C.F.R. § 208.21, and the Constitution, and without regard to the letter or spirit of the Executive Order;
(c) Declare that Defendants may not deny Plaintiff’s wife and daughter visas nor bar their entry into the United States in violation of INA § 208(b)(3), 8 C.F.R. § 208.21, and the Constitution or in furtherance of the letter or spirit of the Executive Order;
(d) Enjoin the enforcement of Section 2(c) and such other portions of the Executive Order that affect Plaintiff’s derivative petitions and/or the entry of Plaintiff’s wife and child into the United States and order that, in the event that Plaintiff’s petitions for asylum are granted, Defendants are obligated (i) to promptly issue immigration visas to Plaintiff’s wife and daughter consistent with pre-existing law, and (ii) to permit them to travel to and enter the United States with those visas consistent with pre-existing law; and
(e) For any such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
22

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 27 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 23 of 23
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable as a matter of right.

Dated: New York, New York March 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Vincent Levy HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP Vincent Levy (vlevy@hsgllp.com) Lauren Giudice (lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp.com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp.com) Matthew V.H. Noller (mnoller@hsgllp.com) Sarah Sternlieb (ssternlieb@hsgllp.com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp.com) (law clerk – New York State Bar admission pending) 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151
PINES BACH LLP Lester A. Pines, SBN 1016543 Tamara B. Packard, SBN 1023111 Alison TenBruggencate, SBN 1018869 122 West Washington Ave., Ste. 900 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 251-0101 (telephone) (608) 251-2883 (facsimile) lpines@pinesbach.com tpackard@pinesbach.com atenbruggencate@pinesbach.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 29 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112
Chief Judge William M. Conley
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law; the Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Summary Judgment, dated February 13, 2017 (Dkt. No. 13); the Declaration of John Doe in Support of His Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, dated March 10, 2017; the Second Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, dated March 10, 2017; and Plaintiff’s Proposed Statement of Record Facts, as well as any other matter that the Court may determine to be just and proper, Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, moves this Court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 29 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendants’ counsel on March 6, 2017 that Plaintiff planned to seek the foregoing relief.

Dated: New York, New York March 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Vincent Levy HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP Vincent Levy (vlevy@hsgllp.com) Lauren Giudice (lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp.com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp.com) Matthew V.H. Noller (mnoller@hsgllp.com) Sarah Sternlieb (ssternlieb@hsgllp.com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp.com) (law clerk – New York State Bar admission pending) 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151
PINES BACH LLP Lester A. Pines, SBN 1016543 Tamara B. Packard, SBN 1023111 Alison TenBruggencate, SBN 1018869 122 West Washington Ave., Ste. 900 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 251-0101 (telephone) (608) 251-2883 (facsimile) lpines@pinesbach.com tpackard@pinesbach.com atenbruggencate@pinesbach.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 40

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 :(67(51 ',675,&7 2) :,6&216,1

-2+1 '2(
3ODLQWLII
DJDLQVW
'21$/' - 75803 DV 3UHVLGHQW RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RI $PHULFD -2+1 ) .(//< DV 6HFUHWDU\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +RPHODQG 6HFXULW\ 7+( '(3$570(17 2) +20(/$1' 6(&85,7< /25, 6&,$/$%%$ DV $FWLQJ 'LUHFWRU RI WKH 8 6 &LWL]HQVKLS DQG ,PPLJUDWLRQ 6HUYLFHV 8 6 &,7,=(16+,3 $1' ,00,*5$7,21 6(59,&(6 5(; : 7,//(5621 DV 6HFUHWDU\ RI 6WDWH 8 6 '(3$570(17 2) 67$7( DQG 7+( 81,7(' 67$7(6 2) $0(5,&$
'HIHQGDQWV

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R FY &KLHI -XGJH :LOOLDP 0 &RQOH\

0(025$1'80 2) /$: ,1 6833257 2) 3/$,17,))’6 5(1(:(' $33/,&$7,21 )25 $ 7(0325$5< 5(675$,1,1*
25'(5 $1' 35(/,0,1$5< ,1-81&7,21

'DWHG 0DUFK

+2/:(// 6+867(5 *2/'%(5* //3 6HYHQWK $YHQXH WK )ORRU
1HZ <RUN 1<
$WWRUQH\V IRU 3ODLQWLII

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 40
7$%/( 2) &217(176
35(/,0,1$5< 67$7(0(17 )$&78$/ %$&.*5281' $5*80(17
, 3/$,17,)) ,6 /,.(/< 72 68&&((' 21 7+( 0(5,76 2) +,6 &/$,0 $ 7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 9,2/$7(6 7+( ,1$ % 7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 81/$:)8//< ,17(5)(5(6 :,7+ PLAINTIFF’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY, IN 9,2/$7,21 2) '8( 352&(66 & 7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 9,2/$7(6 7+( (67$%/,6+0(17 &/$86( $1' (48$/ 3527(&7,21 %< ',63523257,21$7(/< %85'(1,1* 086/,06 %$6(' 21 $17, 086/,0 $1,086 ' 7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 81&2167,787,21$//< ',6&5,0,1$7(6 21 7+( %$6,6 2) 1$7,21$/,7< ( 7+( *29(510(17 &$1127 -867,)< 7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 %$6(' 21 62 &$//(' 35(6,'(17,$/ 32:(56
,, 3/$,17,)) 67$1'6 72 68))(5 ,55(3$5$%/( ,1-85< $1' 7+( (48,7,(6 67521*/< 7,/7 ,1 +,6 )$925
&21&/86,21


Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 40

7$%/( 2) $87+25,7,(6

&DVHV

$&/8 RI ,OO Y $OYDUH]

)G

WK &LU

$QGUHLX Y $VKFURIW

)G

WK &LU

$]L] Y 7UXPS

1R

FY /0% 7&%

:/

( ' 9D )HE

$]L] Y 7UXPS

1R

FY /0% 7&%

:/

( ' 9D )HE

%KG RI 0DLQW RI :D\ (PSV Y &6; 7UDQVS ,QF

)G

WK &LU

%URNDZ Y 0HUFHU &W\

)G

WK &LU

%XVWDPDQWH Y 0XNDVH\

)G

WK &LU

&KXUFK RI /XNDPL %DEDOX $\H ,QF Y &LW\ RI +LDOHDK 86

&LW\ RI &OHEXUQH Y &OHEXUQH /LYLQJ &WU 86

'DUZHHVK Y 7UXPS

1R &LY

$0'

:/

( ' 1 < -DQ

'RH H[ UHO 'RH Y (OPEURRN 6FKRRO 'LVW

)G

WK &LU

(OURG Y %XUQV 86

([ SDUWH 4XLULQ 86

([RGXV 5HIXJHH ,PPLJUDWLRQ ,QF Y 3HQFH ) 6XSS G 6 ' ,QG

LL

3DJH V

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 40

([RGXV 5HIXJHH ,PPLJUDWLRQ ,QF Y 3HQFH

)G

WK &LU

(]HOO Y &LW\ RI &KLFDJR

)G

WK &LU

)'$ Y %URZQ :LOOLDPVRQ 7REDFFR &RUS 86

)LDOOR Y %HOO 86

*LUO 6FRXWV RI 0DQLWRX &RXQFLO ,QF Y *LUO 6FRXWV RI 8 6 ,QF

)G

WK &LU

*ULVZROG Y &RQQHFWLFXW 86

+DPGL Y 5XPVIHOG 86

+HFNOHU Y &KDQH\

86

Q

+LOOPDQ Y 0DUHWWD 6 &W

-HVVHQ Y 9LOO RI /\QGRQ 6WDWLRQ

) 6XSS

: ' :LV

-RHOQHU Y 9LOO RI :DVK 3DUN

)G

WK &LU

.+ 2XWGRRU //& Y &LW\ RI 7UXVVYLOOH

)G

WK &LU

.HUU\ Y 'LQ 6 &W

.OHLQGLHQVW Y 0DQGHO 86

/DUVRQ Y 9DOHQWH 86

Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State ) G ' & &LU

LLL

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 40

/HLYD 3HUH] Y +ROGHU

)G

WK &LU

/RXKJKDODP Y 7UXPS

1R FY

' 0DVV )HE

/RYLQJ Y 9LUJLQLD 86

/XLV Y 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6 &W

0DWKHZV Y (OGULGJH 86

0F&UHDU\ &W\ Y $&/8 RI .\ 86

0H\HU Y 1HEUDVND 86

Milwaukee Cty. Pavers Ass’n v. )LHGOHU

) 6XSS

: ' :LV PRGLILHG

) 6XSS

: ' :LV

0RKDPPHG Y 8QLWHG 6WDWHV

1R &9

$% 3/$[

:/

& ' &DO -DQ

0RRUH Y &LW\ RI ( &OHYHODQG 86

N.Y. State Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Dublino, 86

2EHUJHIHOO Y +RGJHV 6 &W

2OVHQ Y $OEULJKW ) 6XSS ' ' &

2PDU Y .HUU\

1R &9

-6&

:/

1 ' &DO 2FW

Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney 86

Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary 86

LY

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 40

3LQJ 3LQJ =KRX Y .DQH

1R &9

3+; '*& (&9

:/

' $UL] 0D\

3UHVWRQ Y 7KRPSVRQ

)G

WK &LU

5DPLUH] 9LFDULR Y $FKLP

1R &

:/

1 ' ,OO )HE

5RPHU Y (YDQV 86

6FKRRO 'LVW RI $ELQJGRQ 7ZS Y 6FKHPS 86

7UR[HO Y *UDQYLOOH 86

8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y 6DOHUQR 86

8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y 7LWWMXQJ

)G

WK &LU

8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y 8 6 &RLQ &XUUHQF\ 86

8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y :LQGVRU 6 &W

8 6 'ep’t of Agric. v. Moreno

86

–

9D\HJKDQ Y .HOO\

1R &9

:/

& ' &DO -DQ

9LOO RI $UOLQJWRQ +HLJKWV Y 0HWUR +RXVLQJ 'HY &RUS 86

9LVLRQ &KXUFK Y 9LOO RI /RQJ *URYH

)G

WK &LU

C

:DVKLQJWRQ Y 7UXPS

1R &

-/5

:/

: ' :DVK )HE

:DVKLQJWRQ Y 7UXPS

)G

WK &LU

Y

SDVVLP

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 40

Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. 86

:LQQLJ Y 6HOOHQ ) 6XSS G

: ' :LV

:RQJ :LQJ +DQJ Y ,16

)G

G &LU

<RXQJVWRZQ 6KHHW 7XEH &R Y 6DZ\HU 86

=DEORFNL Y 5HGKDLO 86

=LYRWRIVN\ H[ UHO =LYRWRIVN\ Y .HUU\ 6 &W

6WDWXWHV DQG 5HJXODWLRQV

,PPLJUDWLRQ DQG 1DWLRQDOLW\ $FW

86& 

D

86& 

86& 

86& 

86& 

86& 

86& 

I

86& 

D

86& 

HW VHT

SDVVLP

,PPLJUDWLRQ DQG 1DWLRQDOLW\ $FW RI

3XE /

 H 6WDW

,PPLJUDWLRQ DQG 1DWLRQDOLW\ $FW RI

3XE /



D 6WDW

&)5 

&)5 

2WKHU $XWKRULWLHV

'+6 $QQXDO )ORZ 5HSRUW 5HIXJHHV DQG $V\OHHV

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

0DU

SDVVLP

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

-DQ

SDVVLP

)LQDO $FW RI WKH

8 1 &RQIHUHQFH RI 3OHQLSRWHQWLDULHV RQ WKH 6WDWXV RI 5HIXJHHV DQG

6WDWHOHVV 3HUVRQV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ

YL

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 40

+ 5 5HS 1R

3UHV 3URF 1R

$XJ

6 5HS 1R

YLL

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 40

35(/,0,1$5< 67$7(0(17

7KLV LV DQ DFWLRQ WR HQMRLQ WKH XQODZIXO LPPLJUDWLRQ EDQ WKDW 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS KDV QRZ

WZLFH VRXJKW WR LPSOHPHQW E\ H[HFXWLYH RUGHU ILUVW RQ -DQXDU\

DQG WKHQ DJDLQ RQ

0DUFK

$V WKH &RXUW LV DZDUH 3ODLQWLII LV D ODZIXO UHVLGHQW DOLHQ ZKR DIWHU PRUH WKDQ D

\HDU RI WKRURXJK YHWWLQJ E\ 8 6 LPPLJUDWLRQ DXWKRULWLHV ZDV JUDQWHG DV\OXP VWDWXV LQ 0D\

RQ DFFRXQW RI WKH WRUWXUH DQG SHUVHFXWLRQ KH KDG VXIIHUHG LQ 6\ULD DQG WKH ULVN RI VHULRXV KDUP KH

IDFHG WKHUH VKRXOG KH UHWXUQ +H SURPSWO\ ILOHG GHULYDWLYH SHWLWLRQV WR VHFXUH DV\OXP VWDWXV IRU

KLV ZLIH DQG WKUHH \HDU ROG GDXJKWHU ERWK RI ZKRP KDG EHHQ IRUFHG WR VWD\ EHKLQG LQ ZDU WRUQ

$OHSSR 8QGHU WKH ,PPLJUDWLRQ DQG 1DWLRQDOLW\ $FW “,1$” DSSURYDO RI WKRVH SHWLWLRQV VKRXOG

KDYH EHHQ D IRUHJRQH FRQFOXVLRQ 1HYHUWKHOHVV 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS KDV VLJQHG WZR H[HFXWLYH

RUGHUV WKDW ostensibly in “the interests of the United States,” VHHN WR VXVSHQG WKH HQWU\ RI DOO

6\ULDQV — DQG WKXV WKUHDWHQ WR NHHS 3ODLQWLII DSDUW IURP KLV ZLIH DQG \RXQJ FKLOG ZKR UHPDLQ LQ

$OHSSR KLGLQJ IURP ZDUULQJ IDFWLRQV ZKR ZLVK WKHP ERWK GHDG

7KH March 6 executive order (the “([HFXWLYH 2UGHU”) is President Trump’s attempt to

VDOYDJH WKH -DQXDU\ H[HFXWLYH RUGHU ZKLFK WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWV HQMRLQHG DV XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO

%XW 9HUVLRQ RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV QR EHWWHU WKDQ 9HUVLRQ 7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

DFFRPSOLVKHV WKH VDPH XQODZIXO JRDOV WKURXJK WKH VDPH XQODZIXO PHDQV DV WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU

DQG VKRXOG SURPSWO\ EH VHW DVLGH ,W YLRODWHV WKH WHUPV RI WKH ,1$ DQG IUXVWUDWHV Congress’s

SXUSRVH LQ SDVVLQJ WKDW VWDWXWH ZKLFK SURKLELWV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI QDWLRQDO RULJLQ DQG

ZDV LQWHQGHG WR VHFXUH WKH ULJKW RI IDPLO\ LQWHJULW\ ,W DOVR YLRODWHV WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI WKH

8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQ PXOWLSOH UHVSHFWV By interfering with Plaintiff’s fundamental right to family

LQWHJULW\ LQ D PDQQHU WKDW LV QRW QDUURZO\ WDLORUHG WR D FRPSHOOLQJ JRYHUQPHQW LQWHUHVW DQG

ZLWKRXW DGHTXDWH SURFHGXUHV WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU YLRODWHV WKH 'XH 3URFHVV &ODXVH %\ EDQQLQJ

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 40
QDWLRQDOV IURP SUHGRPLQDQWO\ 0XVOLP FRXQWULHV DQG UHIOHFWLQJ DQ LQYLGLRXV SXUSRVH RI GLVIDYRULQJ 0XVOLPV LW YLRODWHV WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW &ODXVH and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee RI (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ $QG E\ EDQQLQJ WKH HQWU\ RI 6\ULDQV EDVHG VROHO\ RQ WKHLU QDWLRQDOLW\ LW YLRODWHV (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ
,QGHHG VLQFH 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS ILUVW VRXJKW WR LPSOHPHQW D QLQHW\ GD\ WUDYHO EDQ — SXUSRUWHGO\ WR JLYH WKH *RYHUQPHQW WLPH WR VWXG\ YHWWLQJ SURFHGXUHV — LW KDV EHFRPH HYHQ FOHDUHU WKDW WKHUH LV QR ODZIXO MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH EDQ 8QDEOH WR DUWLFXODWH D MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU LQ DQ\ RI WKH OHJDO FKDOOHQJHV WR WKDW RUGHU WKH *RYHUQPHQW VRXJKW SRVW KRF YLQGLFDWLRQ WKURXJK D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +RPHODQG 6HFXULW\ %XW '+6 FDPH XS HPSW\ FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.” President Trump nonetheless VLPSO\ UHQHZHG WKH QLQHW\ GD\ WUDYHO EDQ WRXWLQJ LWV SURPXOJDWLRQ WR VXSSRUWHUV as a strike against “radical Islamic terrorism ” If WKH *RYHUQPHQW KDG EHHQ VHULRXV DERXW GHYLVLQJ PRUH VWULQJHQW YHWWLQJ SURFHGXUHV WKH RVWHQVLEOH JRDO RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WKHQ SUHVXPDEO\ LW ZRXOG KDYH PDGH VRPH SURJUHVV RQ WKDW IURQW LQ WKH PRUH WKDQ ILYH ZHHNV VLQFH -DQXDU\ %XW WKHUH LV QR HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH *RYHUQPHQW KDV FRPH XS ZLWK DQ\WKLQJ RWKHU WKDQ SUHWH[WXDO MXVWLILFDWLRQV IRU WKH VDPH DQWL 0XVOLP WUDYHO EDQ LW VRXJKW WR LPSOHPHQW LQ WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU
0HDQZKLOH although the Government has been processing Plaintiff’s derivative SHWLWLRQV VLQFH WKH WLPH KH ILOHG WKLV ODZVXLW WKH XQODZIXO ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU VWLOO WKUHDWHQV WR YLVLW LUUHSDUDEOH LQMXU\ XSRQ 3ODLQWLII DQG KLV IDPLO\ EHFDXVH LW ZLOO LI HQIRUFHG DFFRUGLQJ WR LWV WHUPV bar Plaintiff’s wife and daughter from receiving visas or entering the United States. 7KH &RXUW VKRXOG WKHUHIRUH HQWHU WHPSRUDU\ DQG RU SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLYH UHOLHI EDUULQJ WKH *RYHUQPHQW

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 11 of 40

IURP UHO\LQJ on the Executive Order in processing Plaintiff’s SHWLWLRQV DQG RWKHUZLVH

DGMXGLFDWLQJ WKH HQWU\ RI KLV IDPLO\ LQWR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV

)$&78$/ %$&.*5281'

$  3ODLQWLII 6HHNV $V\OXP LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV IRU +LPVHOI DQG +LV )DPLO\

3ODLQWLII LV D WKLUW\ WZR \HDU ROG 6\ULDQ PDQ DQG 6XQQL 0XVOLP ZKR UHVLGHV LQ

:LVFRQVLQ %HIRUH KH FDPH WR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KH IDFHG QHDU FHUWDLQ GHDWK DW WKH KDQGV RI WZR

ZDUULQJ IRUFHV LQ $OHSSR WKH 6XQQL DOLJQHG )UHH 6\ULDQ Army (“FSA”) and the Alawite DOLJQHG

6\ULDQ $UDE Army (“SAA”) 7KH )6$ DQG 6$$ KDYH EHHQ HQJDJHG LQ D VL[ \HDU FLYLO ZDU IRU

FRQWURO RI $OHSSR ,Q

WKH )6$ EHJDQ WDUJHWLQJ 3ODLQWLII RQ WKH LQFRUUHFW EHOLHI WKDW

3ODLQWLII ZDV V\PSDWKHWLF WR WKH 6$$ WKH 6$$ IRU LWV SDUW WDUJHWHG 3ODLQWLII EHFDXVH KH ZDV

6XQQL DQG RZQHG D EXVLQHVV LQ )6$ FRQWUROOHG WHUULWRU\ )6$ DQG 6$$ VROGLHUV H[WRUWHG IDOVHO\

LPSULVRQHG WRUWXUHG DQG WKUHDWHQHG WR NLOO 3ODLQWLII 7KH 6$$ WKUHDWHQHG WR UDSH KLV ZLIH

After learning that he had been “marked for death” E\ WKH )6$ DQG FRQVFULSWHG LQWR WKH

6$$ 3ODLQWLII IOHG 6\ULD LQ 0DUFK DQG VRXJKW DV\OXP LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ,Q $SULO

KH ILOHG DQ LQLWLDO $SSOLFDWLRQ IRU $V\OXP DQG IRU :LWKKROGLQJ RI 5HPRYDO ZLWK WKH 8QLWHG

6WDWHV &LWL]HQVKLS DQG ,PPLJUDWLRQ 6HUvices (“USCIS”) :KLOH KLV LQLWLDO DSSOLFDWLRQ ZDV XQGHU

UHYLHZ WKH EXLOGLQJ ZKHUH KLV ZLIH DQG FKLOGUHQ ZHUH KLGLQJ LQ $OHSSR ZDV KLW E\ URFNHW ILUH ,Q

the ensuing panic, Plaintiff’s WKUHH \HDU ROG VRQ IHOO WKUHH VWRULHV DQG GLHG 8QDEOH WR FRPIRUW KLV

ZLIH RU PRXUQ KLV VRQ LQ SHUVRQ 3ODLQWLII UHGRXEOHG KLV HIIRUWV WR REWDLQ DV\OXP IRU KLPVHOI DQG

7KH IDFWV VHW IRUWK KHUHLQ DUH VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ 'HFODUDWLRQ RI $QGUHZ % Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Summary Judgment (“Breidenbach Decl.”) (Feb. 13, 2017), 'NW 1R
6HFRQG 'HFODUDWLRQ RI $QGUHZ % %UHLGHQEDFK LQ Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed $SSOLFDWLRQ IRU D 7HPSRUDU\ 5HVWUDLQLQJ 2UGHU DQG 3UHOLPLQDU\ ,QMXQFWLon (“Second Breidenbach Decl.”); and 'HFODUDWLRQ RI -RKQ 'RH LQ 6XSSRUW RI +LV 5HQHZHG $SSOLFDWLRQ IRU D 7HPSRUDU\ 5HVWUDLQLQJ 2UGHU DQG 3UHOLPLQDU\ ,QMXQFWLRQ

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 12 of 40

KLV IDPLO\ DQG ILOHG DQ DPHQGHG DV\OXP DSSOLFDWLRQ LQ 2FWREHU

,Q 0D\

DQ

Immigration Judge granted Plaintiff asylum, finding that Plaintiff’s rHWXUQ WR 6\ULD ZRXOG

WKUHDWHQ KLV OLIH RU IUHHGRP LQ YLRODWLRQ RI WKH 8 1 &RQYHQWLRQ $JDLQVW 7RUWXUH

As soon as the Immigration Judge’s decision became final, Plaintiff VRXJKW DV\OXP IRU KLV

ZLIH DQG GDXJKWHU E\ ILOLQJ 5HIXJHH $V\OHH 5HODWLYH 3HWLWLRQV ZLWK 86&,6 RQ IRUP ,

6HH

,1$ 8 6 & 

E

&)5 

. Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petitionV HVWDEOLVK

WKDW KH LV DQ DV\OHH DQG WKDW KLV ZLIH DQG GDXJKWHU DUH TXDOLI\LQJ EHQHILFLDULHV Plaintiff’s wife

GRHV QRW EHDU KRVWLOH DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV LWV &RQVWLWXWLRQ RU LWV IRXQGLQJ

SULQFLSOHV 1HLWKHU GRHV KLV GDXJKWHU ZKR LV D WKUHH \HDU ROG FKLOG LQFDSDEOH RI KROGLQJ VXFK

YLHZV 7KH\ KDYH QHYHU HQJDJHG LQ DFWV RI KDWUHG SHUVHFXWLRQ RSSUHVVLRQ RU WHUURU /LNH

3ODLQWLII WKH\ ZRXOG EH DFWLYH DQG SURGXFWLYH PHPEHUV RI WKH :LVFRQVLQ FRPPXQLW\ DV VRRQ DV

WKH\ DUH DEOH )RU QRZ WKRXJK WKH\ UHPDLQ WUDSSHG LQ 6\ULD ZKHUH WKH\ OLYH LQ KLGLQJ IURP WKH

6$$ DQG )6$ 7KH\ ODFN DFFHVV WR EDVLF PHGLFDO FDUH DQG DGHTXDWH IRRG $QG WKH\ DUH DW

LPPLQHQW ULVN RI UDSH RU GHDWK

$V RI -DQXDU\

DSSURYDO RI Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petitionV VHHPHG OLNH D

sure thing. USCIS’s processing center in Nebraska had reviewed tKH SHWLWLRQV IRXQG WKHP WR EH

LQ RUGHU DQG IRUZDUGHG WKHP WR USCIS’s Milwaukee office IRU D VHFXULW\ FKHFN 7KDW WRR

FOHDUHG DQG WKH SHWLWLRQV ZHUH VHQW EDFN WR 1HEUDVND IRU ILQDO SURFHVVLQJ

%  0U 7UXPS 3URPLVHV D 0XVOLP %DQ DQG 6LJQV WKH )LUVW ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

%HIRUH KH ZDV HOHFWHG 3UHVLGHQW 'RQDOG 7UXPS FDPSDLJQHG RQ D SURPLVH WR HIIHFWXDWH D

“complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  $PLG

FULWLFLVP WKH WKHQ FDQGLGDWH DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV VKLIWHG WKHLU UKHWRULF LQVWHDG WDUJHWLQJ FRXQWULHV

with “a proven history of terrorism” DV D SUR[\ IRU ,VODP %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ ) 0U 7UXPS

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 13 of 40

acknowledged this pivot as “an expansion” of his proposed “Muslim ban,” not a rollback. 6HH

%UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ + $QG KH UHSHDWHGO\ UHIXVHG WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ SHDFHIXO 0XVOLPV

and terrorists, contending that “you don’t know who is who.” 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO 

6\ULDQV LQ SDUWLFXODU, found themselves in Mr. Trump’s cross KDLUV GXULQJ WKH

FDPSDLJQ One of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises was to “stop the tremendous flow of Syrian

refugees into the United States.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  He urged citizens to “lock your doors”

DJDLQVW 6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV WKDW KDG UHVHWWOHG LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ,G

0U 7UXPS EHJDQ SODQQLQJ KRZ WR IROORZ WKURXJK RQ WKHVH LQYLGLRXV FDPSDLJQ SURPLVHV

HYHQ EHIRUH WDNLQJ RIILFH ,Q D WHOHYLVLRQ LQWHUYLHZ 5XG\ *LXOLDQL D FORVH DGYLVRU WR 0U 7UXPS

explained that, after announcing his “Muslim ban,” Mr. Trump “called [Mr. GiuliaQL@ XS +H VDLG

‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO 

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into

the United States” and VLJQHG E\ 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS RQ -DQXDU\

ZDV WKH UHVXOW 7KH

RUGHU EDUUHG IURP WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WKH YHU\ JURXSV RI LPPLJUDQWV 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS SURPLVHG WR

WDUJHW GXULQJ KLV FDPSDLJQ LQFOXGLQJ DOO 6\ULDQV 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ 1 7KXV 6HFWLRQ

F RI WKH RULJLQDO RUGHU FDWHJRULFDOO\ SURKLELWHG WKH HQWU\ RI DOO DOLHQV IURP VHYHQ 0XVOLP

PDMRULW\ FRXQWULHV LQFOXGLQJ 6\ULD IRU QLQHW\ GD\V 6HFWLRQ D VXVSHQGHG WKH 8 6 5HIXJHH

$GPLVVLRQV 3URJUDP IRU DOO FRXQWULHV IRU GD\V DQG 6HFWLRQ F VXVSHQGHG WKH HQWU\ RI

6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV LQGHILQLWHO\ 7KHVH SURYLVLRQV DSSOLHG ZKHWKHU RU QRW D 6\ULDQ VHHNLQJ HQWU\

SRVHG DQ\ WKUHDW RI YLROHQFH RU KDG DQ\ FRQQHFWLRQ WR WHUURULVW RUJDQL]DWLRQV RU DFWLYLWLHV

,QGHHG 6HFWLRQ F DSSOLHG WR 6\ULDQV RI DOO DJHV LQFOXGLQJ \RXQJ FKLldren like Plaintiff’s

WKUHH \HDU ROG GDXJKWHU ZKR LV SODLQO\ LQFDSDEOH RI SRVLQJ D WKUHDW WR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 14 of 40
7KH ILUVW H[HFXWLYH RUGHU DOVR GLVFULPLQDWHG DJDLQVW 0XVOLPV ,W GLUHFWHG WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI State, upon resumption of refugee admissions, to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals RQ WKH EDVLV RI UHOLJLRXV EDVHG SHUVHFXWLRQ SURYLGHG WKDW WKH UHOLJLRQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV D minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” -DQ 2UGHU  E HPSKDVLV DGGHG VHH DOVR LG  H) (allowing for exceptions to Section 5(a) “when the person is a UHOLJLRXV PLQRULW\ LQ KLV FRXQWU\ Rf nationality facing religious persecution”). President Trump ZDV IUDQN DERXW KLV LQWHQW WR IDYRU &KULVWLDQV RYHU 0XVOLPV ,PPHGLDWHO\ EHIRUH VLJQLQJ WKH Executive Order, President Trump (falsely) asserted that, under earlier refugee policies, “[i]f you ZHUH D 0XVOLP \RX FRXOG FRPH LQ >WR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV@ EXW LI \RX ZHUH D &KULVWLDQ LW ZDV DOPRVW LPSRVVLEOH . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO 
$W WKH VLJQLQJ FHUHPRQ\ IRU WKH H[HFXWLYH RUGHU 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS VWDWHG WKDW LWV SXUSRVH ZDV to “establish[] new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  +H WKHQ DGGHG “We all know what that means.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  ([ 2
&  )HGHUDO &RXUWV (QMRLQ WKH )LUVW ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU DQG WKH *RYHUQPHQW &RQWLQXHV 3URFHVVLQJ Plaintiff’s 3HWLWLRQV
)HGHUDO FRXUWV EHJDQ KHDULQJ OHJDO FKDOOHQJHV WR WKH -DQXDU\ H[HFXWLYH RUGHU DOPRVW DV VRRQ DV 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS VLJQHG LW $QG given the order’s irrationality and discriminatory SXUSRVH DQG HIIHFW FRXUWV ZHUH DOPRVW XQLIRUP LQ HQMRLQLQJ LWV HQIRUFHPHQW 0RVW QRWDEO\ WKH

6HH 'DUZHHVK Y 7UXPS 1R &LY

$0'

:/

DW ( ' 1 <

-DQ

9D\HJKDQ Y .HOO\ 1R &9

:/

DW & ' &DO -DQ

0RKDPPHG Y 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 1R &9

$% 3/$[

:/

DW –

& ' &DO -DQ

$]L] Y 7UXPS 1R

FY /0% 7&%

:/

DW

( ' 9D )HE

:DVKLQJWRQ Y 7UXPS 1R &

-/5

:/

DW

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 15 of 40

GLVWULFW FRXUW LQ :DVKLQJWRQ Y 7UXPS LVVXHG D QDWLRQZLGH LQMXQFWLRQ DJDLQVW WKH RUGHU ILQGLQJ

WKDW WKH SODintiffs had “shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the[ir] claims” that

WKH RUGHU ZDV XQODZIXO

:/

DW

7KH *RYHUQPHQW DSSHDOHG WKH :DVKLQJWRQ district court’s order and sought an emergency

VWD\ SHQGLQJ DSSHDO 2Q )HEUXDU\ WKH &RXUW RI $SSHDOV GHQLHG WKH VWD\ UHTXHVW ILQGLQJ WKDW

the Government had not “shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal.” :DVKLQJWRQ

Y 7UXPS ) G

WK &LU

SHU FXULDP 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH FRXUW KHOG WKDW WKH

*RYHUQPHQW KDG QRW HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW WKH -DQXDU\ H[HFXWLYH RUGHU VDWLVILHG WKH 'XH 3URFHVV

Clause because it did not “provide[] what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior

WR UHVWULFWLQJ DQ LQGLYidual’s ability to travel.” ,G DW

7KH FRXUW DOVR KHOG WKDW WKH

plaintiffs’ claimV WKDW WKH H[HFXWLYH RUGHU YLRODWHG WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW DQG (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ

Clauses “present[ed] significant constitutional questions” in light of “numerous statements E\ WKH

President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as evidence [plaintiffs] claim

suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban.” ,G DW –

2Q )HEUXDU\ 3ODLQWLII ILOHG WKH LQVWDQW ODZVXLW VHHNLQJ WR SHUPDQHQWO\ HQMRLQ

HQIRUFHPHQW RI WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU EHFDXVH WKH QDWLRQZLGH 752 HQWHUHG E\ WKH FRXUW LQ

:DVKLQJWRQ ZDV WHPSRUDU\ 3ODLQWLII FRXOG QRW EH VXUH WKDW LW ZRXOG EH VXVWDLQHG RQ DSSHDO

JLYHQ WKDW WKH *RYHUQPHQW ZDV FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH :DVKLQJWRQ plaintiffs’ VWDQGLQJ WR VXH DQG

EDVHG RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHFHLYHG IURP WKH *RYHUQPHQW 3ODLQWLII EHOLHYHG WKH *RYHUQPHQW ZDV QRW

SURFHVVLQJ KLV SHWLWLRQV QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ WKH :DVKLQJWRQ LQMXQFWLRQ. In response to Plaintiff’s

PRWLRQ IRU D WHPSRUDU\ UHVWUDLQLQJ RUGHU SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLRQ DQG VXPPDU\ MXGJPHQW LQ WKLV

: ' :DVK )HE

$]L] Y 7UXPS 1R

FY /0% 7&%

:/

DW

– ( ' 9D )HE

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 16 of 40

FDVH WKH *RYHUQPHQW UHSUHVHQWHG WKDW LW KDG VWRSSHG SURFHVVLQJ GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV RQFH

3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS VLJQHG WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU EXW KDG UHVXPHG SURFHVVLQJ VXFK SHWLWLRQV

(including Plaintiff’s IROORZLQJ WKH :DVKLQJWRQ LQMXQFWLRQ 7KH *RYHUQPHQW DOVR UHSUHVHQWHG

WKDW 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS ZRXOG EH VLJQLQJ D UHYLVHG H[HFXWLYH RUGHU SURPSWO\. Defs.’ Response to

Court’s Order )HE

'NW 1R $V D UHVXOW RI WKHVH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV 3ODLQWLII

ZLWKGUHZ KLV UHTXHVW IRU D WHPSRUDU\ UHVWUDLQLQJ RUGHU DQG WKH &RXUW GHQLHG DV PRRW Plaintiff’s

RWKHU UHTXHVWV ZLWKRXW SUHMXGLFH 2UGHU )HE

'NW 1R

2Q )HEUXDU\ 3ODLQWLII UHFHLYHG QRWLFH IURP 86&,6 WKDW LWV 1HEUDVND SURFHVVLQJ FHQWHU

KDG FRPSOHWHG LWV UHYLHZ RI KLV SHWLWLRQV 86&,6 UHSUHVHQWHG WKDW LW ZRXOG WUDQVIHU KLV SHWLWLRQV

WR WKH 1DWLRQDO 9LVD &HQWHU IRU SURFHVVLQJ DW WKH 8 6 (PEDVV\ LQ $PPDQ -RUGDQ Plaintiff’s

ZLIH DQG GDXJKWHU ZLOO WKHQ KDYH WR XQGHUJR DQ LQWHUYLHZ LQ $PPDQ EH DSSURYHG IRU YLVDV DQG

DUUDQJH WR WUDYHO WR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV

'  3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS 5HSODFHV WKH -DQXDU\ ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZLWK WKH 1HZ ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

6RRQ DIWHU 3ODLQWLII UHFHLYHG WKH JRRG QHZV IURP 86&,6 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS UHYLYHG KLV

HIIRUWs to ban the entry of Syrians, including Plaintiff’s wife and child, E\ VLJQLQJ ([HFXWLYH

2UGHU

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZKLFK JRHV LQWR HIIHFW RQ 0DUFK LV D UHSHDW RI WKH

-DQXDU\ RUGHU LQ ERWK SXUSRVH DQG HIIHFW ,W LV WLWOHG “Protecting the NDWLRQ IURP )RUHLJQ

Terrorist Entry into the United States” — WKH VDPH QDPH DV WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU /LNH WKH

-DQXDU\ RUGHU LW EDUV IRU D UHQHZHG SHULRG RI QLQHW\ GD\V WKH HQWU\ RI DOO QDWLRQDOV RI VL[

0XVOLP PDMRULW\ FRXQWULHV LQFOXGLQJ 6\ULD RVWHQVLEO\ ZKLOH WKH *RYHUQPHQW VWXGLHV SRWHQWLDO

LPSURYHPHQWV WR YHWWLQJ SURFHGXUHV 8QOLNH WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU LW GRHV QRW EDU HQWU\ IURP

,UDT ,G  F (QWU\ IURP WKH DIIHFWHG FRXQWULHV PD\ EH SURKLELWHG EH\RQG WKH QLQHW\ GD\

SHULRG LI WKH FRXQWULHV GR QRW SURYLGH WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV FHUWDLQ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKHLU QDWLRQDOV

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 17 of 40

,G  H $QG ZKLOH WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU QR ORQJHU LQGHILQLWHO\ EDUV HQWU\ E\ 6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV LW

VXVSHQGV 865$3 IRU GD\V MXVW OLNH WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU ,G  D ,W DOVR SXUSRUWV WR OLPLW

WKH QXPEHU RI UHIXJHHV WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ZLOO DFFHSW LQ WR

,G  E

$V WKH WH[W DQG FRQWH[W RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU HVWDEOLVK LW ZDV LQWHQGHG WR UHSOLFDWH WKH

-DQXDU\ RUGHU DV FORVHO\ DV SRVVLEOH ,Q D WHOHYLVLRQ LQWHUYLHZ RQ )HEUXDU\ :KLWH +RXVH

VHQLRU DGYLVRU 6WHSKHQ 0LOOHU FRQILUPHG WKDW WKH UHYLVHG ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZKLFK ZDV WKHQ LQ WKH

ZRUNV ZRXOG FRQWDLQ “mostly minor, technical differences” IURP WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU GHVLJQHG

to “be responsive” to “flawed, erroneous and false” court orders. “Fundamentally,” Miller said,

“you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country.” 6HFRQG

%UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  $QG LQ D SUHVV EULHILQJ KHOG RQ 0DUFK

IROORZLQJ WKH VLJQLQJ RI

WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU President Trump’s press secretary emphasized that the “principles of the

>QHZ@ executive order remain the same.” 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO 

,I DQ\WKLQJ LW EHFDPH HYHQ FOHDUHU EHWZHHQ -DQXDU\ DQG 0DUFK WKDW WKH ([HFXWLYH

2UGHU’s purported national VHFXULW\ MXVWLILFDWLRQ ZDV D SUHWH[W GHVLJQHG WR obscure the Order’s

WUXH DQWL 0XVOLP PRWLYDWLRQV 'HVSLWH FODLPLQJ WKDW WKH nation’s VHFXULW\ ZDV DW ULVN WKH

$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ GHOD\HG VLJQLQJ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU RQ 0DUFK EHFDXVH GRLQJ VR ZRXOG KDYH

GHWUDFWHG IURP IDYRUDEOH PHGLD FRYHUDJH IRU WKH 3UHVLGHQW 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  (“We

ZDQW WKH >H[HFXWLYH RUGHU@ to have its own ‘moment.’”). 6KRUWO\ WKHUHDIWHU WZR VHSDUDWH UHSRUWV

E\ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +RPHODQG 6HFXULW\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW D WHUULWRU\ EDVHG LPPLJUDWLRQ EDQ GLG

QRW IXUWKHU WKH Executive Order’s RVWHQVLEOH QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ JRDOV 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO

 )DU IURP EHLQJ DQ XUJHQW PDWWHU RI QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ D :KLWH +RXVH RIILFLDO UHYHDOHG RQ

0DUFK WKDW GLVFXVVLRQV DERXW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZHUH PRWLYDWHG DW OHDVW LQ SDUW E\ D GHVLUH WR

SXW WKH 3UHVLGHQW “in a better mood.” 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ 11 $QG ZLWKLQ PRPHQWV

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 18 of 40
RI VLJQLQJ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS VHQW D IXQGUDLVLQJ HPDLO DVVHUWLQJ WKDW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WDUJHWV “radical Islamic terrorism,” as he had promised to do during his FDPSDLJQ 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ 44 VWDWLQJ WKDW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU HPERGLHV “policies [President Trump’s supporters] voted for”)
(  7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU 6HSDUDWHV 3ODLQWLII IURP +LV :LIH DQG 'DXJKWHU 7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU RQFH LW EHFRPHV HIIHFWLYH ZLOO LPPHGLDWHO\ SXW a stop to Plaintiff’s
GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV $OWKRXJK 86&,6 KDV FRQFOXGHG LWV UHYLHZ DQG LV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI WUDQVIHUULQJ Plaintiff’s SHWLWLRQV WR WKH HPEDVV\ LQ $PPDQ WKH SHWLWLRQV KDYH QRW \HW EHHQ ILQDOO\ approved. For that reason, the Executive Order’s exception for QRQ FLWL]HQV “who ha>YH@ EHHQ granted asylum,” Exec. Order § E YL H , does not apply to Plaintiff’s wife and daughter, ZKR VWLOO QHHG WR XQGHUJR YLVD LQWHUYLHZV EH DSSURYHG IRU YLVDV WUDYHO WR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DQG EH JUDQWHG DGPLVVLRQ E\ D FXVWRPV RIILFHU VHH LG  D 2UGHU DSSOLHV WR IRUHLJQ QDWLRQDOV ZKR “are outside the United States” and “do not have a valid visa” by March 16).
6HFWLRQ F RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU EDUV DW OHDVW WKH ODVW WKUHH RI WKRVH VWHSV %XW WKH *RYHUQPHQW PD\ ZHOO VWRS SURFHVVLQJ 3ODLQWLff’s SHWLWLRQV DOWRJHWKHU 7KH RSHUDWLYH SURYLVLRQV RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU DUH WKH VDPH DV LQ WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU ZKLFK WKH *RYHUQPHQW VDLG KDOWHG WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV OLNH WKRVH ILOHG for Plaintiff’s wife and child. Defs.’ Response to Court’s Order, Feb. 17, 2017, 'NW 1R $YDLODEOH JXLGDQFH IURP WKH *RYHUQPHQW VWDWHV WKDW , GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV GR QRW EHQHILW IURP H[FHSWLRQV XQGHU WKH 2UGHU 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  $QG ILQDOO\ WKH *RYHUQPHQW KDV QRW VXEVWDQWLYHO\ UHVSRQGHG WR PXOWLSOH HPDLOV DQG YRLFHPDLOV UHTXHVWLQJ D UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DERXW WKH ([HFXWLYH Order’s effect on Plaintiff’s petitions LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH 2UGHU DIIHFWV KLV SHWLWLRQV 7KXV DV D GLUHFW UHVXOW RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU DQG GHVSLWe the obvious merit of Plaintiff’s derivative

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 19 of 40

DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV 3ODLQWLII LV VHSDUDWHG IURP KLV ZLIH DQG GDXJKWHU ZKR IDFH JUDYH GDQJHU LQ

6\ULD

$5*80(17

7KH &RXUW VKRXOG JUDQW D WHPSRUDU\ UHVWUDLQLQJ RUGHU DQG RU SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLRQ

SURKLELWLQJ WKH *overnment from relying on the Executive Order to delay or deny Plaintiff’s

GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV 7R REWDLQ WHPSRUDU\ RU SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLYH UHOLHI WKH PRYLQJ

party must demonstrate (1) “some likelihood of success on the merits,” (2) no adequate UHPHG\

DW ODZ LUUHSDUDEOH KDUP LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI WKH LQMXQFWLRQ DQG D EDODQFH RI WKH HTXLWLHV LQ

KLV IDYRU $&/8 RI ,OO Y $OYDUH] ) G

WK &LU

7KH “PRUH OLNHO\ WKH

plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balance of harms weigh in his favor.” *LUO 6FRXWV RI

0DQLWRX &RXQFLO ,QF Y *LUO 6FRXWV RI 8 6 ,QF ) G

WK &LU

LQWHUQDO

TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV RPLWWHG

+HUH 3ODLQWLII LV KLJKO\ OLNHO\ WR VXFFHHG RQ WKH PHULWV RI KLV FODLP -XVW OLNH WKH -DQXDU\

RUGHU WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV XQODZIXO IRU PXOWLSOH UHDVRQV it exceeds the President’s

DXWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH ,1$ it violates Plaintiff’s fundamHQWDO ULJKW WR IDPLO\ LQWHJULW\ DQG WKXV

YLRODWHV KLV VXEVWDQWLYH DQG SURFHGXUDO GXH SURFHVV ULJKWV LW GLVFULPLQDWHV DJDLQVW 3ODLQWLII RQ

WKH EDVLV RI UHOLJLRQ LQ YLRODWLRQ RI WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW &ODXVH DQG WKH )LIWK $PHQGPHnt’s

JXDUDQWHH RI (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ DQG LW GLVFULPLQDWHV DJDLQVW 3ODLQWLII RQ WKH EDVLV RI QDWLRQDO

RULJLQ DOVR LQ YLRODWLRQ RI (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ 0RUHRYHU 3ODLQWLII ZLOO VXIIHU LUUHSDUDEOH KDUP LI

WKH 2UGHU LV QRW HQMRLQHG DQG WKH HTXLWLHV WLOW VTXDUHO\ LQ KLV IDYRU

7KH VWDQGDUGV IRU D WHPSRUDU\ UHVWUDLQLQJ RUGHU DQG D SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLRQ DUH WKH

VDPH :LQQLJ Y 6HOOHQ ) 6XSS G

: ' :LV

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 20 of 40

,  3/$,17,)) ,6 /,.(/< 72 68&&((' 21 7+( 0(5,76 2) +,6 &/$,0

$  7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 9,2/$7(6 7+( ,1$

,Q LVVXLQJ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WKH 3UHVLGHQW H[SUHVVO\ LQYRNHG KLV DXWKRULW\ XQGHU

6HFWLRQV I DQG D RI WKH ,1$ 8 6 & 

I

D %XW WKRVH VHFWLRQV GR QRW

DXWKRUL]H WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR VXVSHQG HQWU\ RI DOO 6\ULDQV DV WKH WH[W DQG VWUXFWXUH RI WKH ,1$ PDNH

DSSDUHQW 6HH =LYRWRIVN\ H[ UHO =LYRWRIVN\ Y .HUU\ 6 &W

(“The

([HFXWLYH LV QRW IUHH IURP WKH RUGLQDU\ FRQWUROV DQG FKHFNV RI &RQJUHVV PHUHO\ EHFDXVH IRUHLJQ

DIfairs are at issue.”).

7R EHJLQ ZLWK E\ WHPSRUDULO\ KDOWLQJ WKH LVVXDQFH RI YLVDV IRU 6\ULDQV WKH ([HFXWLYH

2UGHU YLRODWHV 6HFWLRQ D $ RI WKH ,1$ ZKLFK SURKLELWV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ EDVHG RQ

QDWLRQDOLW\ LQ WKH LVVXDQFH RI LPPLJUDQW YLVDV

([FHSW DV VSHFLILFDOO\ SURYLGHG LQ SDUDJUDSK

DQG LQ VHFWLRQV

D

E $ L DQG RI WKLV WLWOH QR SHUVRQ VKDOO UHFHLYH DQ\

SUHIHUHQFH RU SULRULW\ RU EH GLVFULPLQDWHG DJDLQVW LQ WKH LVVXDQFH RI DQ LPPLJUDQW

visa because of the person’V UDFH VH[ QDWLRQDOLW\ SODFH RI ELUWK RU SODFH RI

UHVLGHQFH

86& 

D (1)(A). This section “unambiguously direct[s] that no nationality EDVHG

discrimination shall occur.” /HJDO $VVLVWDnce for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State

)G

' & &LU

YDFDWHG RQ RWKHU JURXQGV 8 6

7KH ([HFXWLYH

2UGHU SODLQO\ YLRODWHV WKDW UHTXLUHPHQW EHFDXVH DV WKH 6HYHQWK &LUFXLW UHFHQWO\ KHOG “WDUJHWLQJ

Section 212(f) provides, in relevant part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of DQ\ DOLHQV RU RI DQ\ FODVV RI DOLHQV LQWR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ZRXOG EH GHWULPHQWDO WR WKH LQWHUHVWV RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KH PD\ E\ SURFODPDWLRQ DQG IRU VXFK SHULRG DV KH VKDOO GHHP QHFHVVDU\ VXVSHQG WKH HQWU\ RI DOO DOLHQV RU DQ\ FODVV RI DOLHQV DV LPPLJUDQWV RU QRQLPPLJUDQWV RU LPSRVH RQ WKH HQWU\ RI DOLHQV DQ\ UHVWULFWLons he may deem to be appropriate.” 6HFWLRQ D provides: “[I]t shall be unlawful . IRU DQ\ DOLHQ WR GHSDUW IURP RU HQWHU RU DWWHPSW WR GHSDUW IURP RU HQWHU WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV H[FHSW XQGHU VXFK UHDVRQDEOH UXOHV UHJXODWLRQV DQG RUGHUV DQG VXEMHct to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 21 of 40

6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV LV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI nationality.” ([RGXV 5HIXJHH ,PPLJUDWLRQ ,QF

Y 3HQFH ) G

WK &LU

6HFWLRQV I DQG D GR QRW SHUPLW WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR GLVUHJDUG 6HFWLRQ

202(a)(1)(A)’s antidiscrimination rule. It is well established that “[a] specific statute takes

SUHFHGHQFH RYHU D PRUH JHQHUDO VWDWXWH DQG D ODWHU HQDFWHG VWDWXWH PD\ OLPLW WKH VFRSH RI DQ

earlier statute.” %KG RI 0DLQW RI :D\ (PSV Y &6; 7UDQVS ,QF ) G

WK &LU

7KDW LV WKH FDVH KHUH 6HFWLRQ D $ ZDV HQDFWHG LQ

WKLUWHHQ \HDUV DIWHU

6HFWLRQV I DQG D 6HH ,1$ RI

3XE /

 6WDW

,1$

RI

3XE /

 H

D 6WDW

$QG 6HFWLRQ

202(a)(1)(A) by its plain terms applies “[e]xcept as specifically provided” in four identified

SURYLVLRQV RI WKH ,1$ — QRQH RI ZKLFK LV 6HFWLRQ I RU 6HFWLRQ D 8 6 &



D (1)(A). Where, as here, “&RQJUHVV H[SOLFLWO\ HQXPHUDWHV FHUWDLQ H[FHSWLRQV WR D

JHQHUDO SURKLELWLRQ DGGLWLRQDO H[FHSWLRQV DUH QRW WR EH LPSOLHG ” +LOOPDQ Y 0DUHWWD 6 &W

LQWHUQDO TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV RPLWWHG %HFDXVH 6HFWLRQ D $ ’s

DQWLGLVFULPLQDWLRQ PDQGDWH GRHV QRW LQFOXGH 6HFWLRQV I RU D LQ LWV OLVW RI H[FHSWLRQV LW

OLPLWV the President’s authority under WKRVH VHFWLRQV 7KH 3UHVLGHQW PD\ QRW XVH 6HFWLRQV I

RU D WR VXVSHQG WKH LVVXDQFH RI YLVDV IRU D JLYHQ QDWLRQDOLW\

Section 202(a)(1)(A)’s legislativH KLVWRU\ FRQILUPV WKH SRLQW %HIRUH

86

immigration was governed by the “national origins system.” H.R. Rep. No. 89 DW

%UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ < . Designed “to maintain the ethnic balance of the American

population as it existed in 1920,” the national origins system created immigration quotas “based

upon race and place of birth.” ,G DW %\

KRZHYHU LW ZDV FOHDU WKDW WKH QDWLRQDO RULJLQV

system, which “impl[ied] that men and women from some countries are, just because of where

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 22 of 40

they come from, more desirable citizens than others,” was “incompatible with our basic

American tradition.” ,G DW ,Q

&RQJUHVV WKXV SDVVHG DPHQGPHQWV WR WKH ,1$ WKH

“primary objective” of which was to “abolish[] . . the national origins quota system” and

replace it with “a new system of selection.” S. Rep. No. 8

DW

%UHLGHQEDFK

'HFO ([ = VHH + 5 5HS 1R

, at 18. This new system, “designed to be faLU UDWLRQDO

humane, and in the national interest,” would select immigrants “without regard to place of birth.”

+ 5 5HS 1R

DW VHH 6 5HS 1R

DW –

Section 202(a)(1)(A) was central to achieving the 1965 Act’s antidiscrimination goals.

6HH 2OVHQ Y $OEULJKW ) 6XSS

''&

. By “flatly forbidding nationality

based discrimination,” 9LHWQDPHVH $V\OXP 6HHNHUV ) G DW 6HFWLRQ D $ HQVXUHG

WKDW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ZRXOG QHYHU DJDLQ FORVH LWV ERUGHUV WR LPPLJUDQWV EDVHG VROHO\ RQ

QDWLRQDOLW\. As President Johnson put it in a signing ceremony before the Statue of Liberty, “for

RYHU IRXU GHFDGHV WKH LPPLJUDWLRQ SROLF\ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KD>G@ EHHQ WZLVWHG DQG

distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system.” The 1965 Act corrected

this “cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([

$$ In contravention of Congress’s mandate, President Trump has sought to repeat ZKDW

3UHVLGHQW -RKQVRQ FDOOHG a “harsh injustice.”

0RUH JHQHUDOO\ Whe President’s reading of SectionV I DQG D WR SHUPLW KLP WR

VXVSHQG DOO UHIXJHH SHWLWLRQV DQG HQWU\ RI DOO 6\ULDQV LV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VWDWXWRU\ VFKHPH

Congress’s JXDUDQWHH RI IDLUQHVV DQG HTXDOLW\ LQ PDWWHUV RI LPPLJUDWLRQ ZRXOG EH D GHDG OHWWHU LI

6HFWLRQV I RU D SHUPLWWHG WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR RYHUULGH WKH FDUHIXOO\ FDOLEUDWHG OHJLVODWLYH

VFKHPH on the mere invocation of the “national interest ” More than that, the Government’s

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 23 of 40

LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQV I DQG D ZRXOG DOORZ WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR VLQJOH KDQGHGO\

GLVPDQWOH WKH HQWLUH ERG\ RI LPPLJUDWLRQ DQG UHIXJHH ODZ WKDW &RQJUHVV FUHDWHG

Particularly relevant here is Congress’s decision in WKH ,1$ WR LPSRVH SUHFLVH

UHTXLUHPHQWV SURFHGXUHV TXRWDV DQG SULRULWLHV IRU LPPLJUDQW YLVDV VHH 8 6 &  –

DQG DGPLVVLRQV IRU UHIXJHHV DQG DV\OHHV VHH LG  – ,I WKH 3UHVLGHQW ZLVKHV WR DOWHU WKH

QXPEHU RI UHIXJees the United States will accept, he may do so only after “appropriate

consultation” with Congress — D VWDWXWRU\ WHUP GHILQHG WR PHDQ PHHWLQJ “ZLWK PHPEHUV RI WKH

&RPPLWWHHV RQ WKH -XGLFLDU\ RI WKH 6HQDWH DQG RI WKH +RXVH RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV WR UHYLHZ WKH

UHIXJHH VLWXDWLRQ” and “to discuss” certain matters specified by statute. ,G 

D

EH

6HFWLRQV D DQG E RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZKLFK XQLODWHUDOO\ VXVSHQG 865$3 DQG SXUSRUW WR

FDS WKH QXPEHU RI UHIXJHHV WKDW PD\ HQWHU WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV ZLWKRXW XQGHUWDNLQJ WKH

“consultation” the INA requires, DUH SURRI SRVLWLYH that the Government’s reading of Section

I ZRXOG UHQGHU WKH UHVW RI WKH ,1$ D QXOOLW\

6LPLODUO\ Congress required “final administrative adjudication” of asylum applications to

“be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed.” 8 U.S.C.



G (5)(A)(iii). To add other “conditions or limitations,” the Attorney GeneUDO — QRW WKH

3UHVLGHQW — must promulgate regulations (following notice and comment) that are “not

inconsistent” with the INA. ,G 

G % $QG WKH ,1$ LQFOXGHV D QXPEHU RI SURYLVLRQV

GHVLJQHG WR IDYRU IDPLO\ UHXQLILFDWLRQ LQ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ DQG SURFHVVLQJ RI LPPLJUDWLRQ PDWWHUV

Earlier in this litigation, the Government took the position that the January 27 order’s suspension of USRAP for 120 days did not apply to Plaintiff’s derivative asylum SHWLWLRQV 'efs.’ Response to the Court’s Order 2 n.1, Feb. 17, 2017, 'NW 1R %XW WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW LV QR ORQJHU WUXH XQGHU 6HFWLRQ D RI WKH QHZ ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WKDW VHFWLRQ DOVR H[FHHGV WKH President’s power. SectionV I and 215(a), which govern the “entry” of aliens, do QRW HPSRZHU WKH 3UHVLGHQW WR XQLODWHUDOO\ VXVSHQG 865$3 7HOOLQJO\ 6HFWLRQ D GRHV QRW FLWH 6HFWLRQ I 6HFWLRQ D RU DQ\ RWKHU VWDWXWH SURYLGLQJ WKH 3UHVLGHQW ZLWK WKDW SRZHU

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 24 of 40

6HH LG 

D

D–H

D 6 5HS 1R

DW “Reunification of

families is to be the foremost consideration.”). 7KHVH SURYLVLRQV UHIOHFW QRW MXVW D FRQVLGHUHG

MXGJPHQW E\ &RQJUHVV WR VXSSRUW IDPLO\ UHODWLRQV EXW DUH DOVR QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WR

KRQRU LWV REOLJDWLRQV XQGHU LQWHUQDWLRQDO ODZ 6HH '+6 $QQXDO )ORZ 5HSRUW 5HIXJHHV DQG

$V\OHHV

%UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ %% (“U.S. asylum policy is governed by the Refugee Act

RI

7KH 5HIXJHH $FW HVWDEOLVKHG D VWDWXWRU\ SURFHVV IRU JUDQWLQJ DV\OXP FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.”)

&RQJUHVV FRXOG QRW KDYH LQWHQGHG WKHVH DQG FRXQWOHVV RWKHU GHWDLOHG SURYLVLRQV WR EH

PHUH VXJJHVWLRQV WKDW WKH 3UHVLGHQW FRXOG RYHUULGH WKURXJK XQUHYLHZDEOH H[HFXWLYH ILDW E\

VLPSO\ SURFODLPLQJ that the “national interest” LV GLIIHUHQW WKDQ ZKDW &RQJUHVV HQDFWHG LQ WKH

,1$ $V -XVWLFH 6FDOLD FRORUIXOO\ H[SODLQHG IRU D XQDQLPRXV 6XSUHPH &RXUW &RQJUHVV GRHV QRW

“hide elHSKDQWV LQ PRXVHKROHV ” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. 8 6

VHH DOVR )'$ Y %URZQ :LOOLDPVRQ 7REDFFR &RUS 8 6

–

KROGLQJ &RQJUHVV GLG QRW LQWHQG WR SHUPLW WKH )'$ WR UHJXODWH WREDFFR E\ JUDQWLQJ LW WKH

authority to regulate “drugs”). 7KH ,1$ VKRXOG QRW EH “interpret[ed] … to negate [its] own

stated purposes.” N.Y. State Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Dublino, 8 6

–

7KH XQFKHFNHG 3UHVLGHQWLDO DXWKRULW\ WKH *RYHUQPHQW UHDGV LQWR 6HFWLRQV I DQG

D UDLVHV VHULRXV $UWLFOH ,, FRQFHUQV VLQFH WKH ([HFXWLYH FDnnot “‘consciously and expressly

adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory

responsibilities.” +HFNOHU Y &KDQH\ 8 6

Q

,QGHHG 3UHVLGHQWV KDYH

6HH )LQDO $FW RI WKH 8 1 &RQIHUHQFH RI 3OHQLSRWHQWLDULHV RQ WKH 6WDWXV RI 5HIXJHHV and Stateless Persons, Recommendation B (Breidenbach Decl. Ex. CC) (declaring that “the unity of the family . . . is an essential right of the refugee” and calling upon governments to “take the QHFHVVDU\ PHDVXres for the protection of the refugee’s family”)

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 25 of 40

QHYHU EHIRUH XQGHUVWRRG WKHLU DXWKRULW\ XQGHU 6HFWLRQV I RU D WR EH XQOLPLWHG LQ WKH

ZD\ WKH *RYHUQPHQW QRZ FODLPV ,Q WKH ORQJ KLVWRU\ RI SUHVLGHQWLDO SURFODPDWLRQV EDVHG RQ

WKRVH VHFWLRQV QRW RQH KDV FDWHJRULFDOO\ H[FOXGHG DOO DOLHQV IURP D SDUWLFXODU QDWLRQ — XQWLO

QRZ 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ - DW – VHH DOVR %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ ;  The “lack of

historical precedent” for the Executive Order is a “telling indication” that it is unlawful. /XLV Y

8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6 &W

LQWHUQDO TXRWDWLRQ PDUN RPLWWHG

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LQVRIDU DV LW EDUV 6\ULDQV HQWU\ LQWR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV VKRXOG EH VHW

DVLGH DQG 'HIHQGDQWV VKRXOG EH RUGHUHd to consider Plaintiff’s derivative SHWLWLRQV FRQVLVWHQW

ZLWK WKH ,1$

%  7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 81/$:)8//< ,17(5)(5(6 :,7+ PLAINTIFF’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY, IN 9,2/$7,21 2) '8( 352&(66

(YHQ LI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU FRXOG EH MXVWLILHG RQ VWDWXWRU\ JURXQGV DV D YDOLG H[HUFLVH RI

DXWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH ,1$ LW ZRXOG VWLOO EH XQODZIXO EHFDXVH, in suspending Plaintiff’s derivative

SHWLWLRQV DQG EDUULQJ HQWU\ RI 6\ULDQV LW YLRODWHV Whe Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due

SURFHVV 7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU YLRODWHV ERWK VXEVWDQWLYH DQG SURFHGXUDO GXH SURFHVV EHFDXVH LW

XQIDLUO\ GHSULYHV 3ODLQWLII RI KLV IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW WR IDPLO\ LQWHJULW\ ZLWKRXW DGHTXDWH

MXVWLILFDWLRQ RU SURFHGXUHV

$V WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW ORQJ DJR H[SODLQHG WKH Fifth Amendment’s SURKLELWLRQ RI

deprivations of liberty without due process protects “QRW PHUHO\ IUHHGRP IURP ERGLO\ UHVWUDLQW

3UHVLGHQW 5HDJDQ GLG LVVXH D SURFODPDWLRQ H[FOXGLQJ PDQ\ &XEDQ QDWLRQDOV EXW WKDW

SURFODPDWLRQ GLG QRW FDWHJRULFDOO\ H[FOXGH &XEDQV DV LPPLJUDQWV DQG GLG QRW H[FOXGH WKHP DV

QRQLPPLJUDQWV DW DOO 3UHV 3URF 1R

$XJ

,W ZDV DOVR D GLUHFW UHVSRQVH WR

Cuba’s suspension of immigration between Cuba and the United States. ,G ,W WKXV SURYLGHV QR

VXSSRUW IRU WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZKLFK FDWHJRULFDOO\ H[FOXGHV DOLHQV IURP VL[ GLIIHUHQW QDWLRQV DV

LPPLJUDQWV DQG QRQLPPLJUDQWV EDVHG RQ QRWKLQJ PRUH WKDQ D JHQHUDOL]HG DQG XQVXSSRUWHG

DVVHUWLRQ RI ULVN

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 26 of 40

EXW DOVR WKH ULJKW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR FRQWUDFW WR HQJDJH LQ DQ\ RI WKH FRPPRQ RFFXSDWLRQV RI

OLIH WR DFTXLUH XVHIXO NQRZOHGJH WR PDUU\ HVWDEOLVK D KRPH DQG EULQJ XS FKLOGUHQ WR ZRUVKLS

*RG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH GLFWDWHV RI KLV RZQ FRQVFLHQFH DQG JHQHUDOO\ WR HQMR\ WKRVH SULYLOHJHV ORQJ

UHFRJQL]HG DW FRPPRQ ODZ DV HVVHQWLDO WR WKH RUGHUO\ SXUVXLW RI KDSSLQHVV E\ IUHH PHQ.” 0H\HU

Y 1HEUDVND 8 6

&RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKDW REVHUYDWLRQ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV VLQFH H[SODLQHG WKDW WKH 'XH

3URFHVV &ODXVH SURWHFWV DJDLQVW XQZDUUDQWHG JRYHUQPHQWDO LQWHUIHUHQFH ZLWK QXPHURXV DVSHFWV RI

WKH PDULWDO UHODWLRQVKLS 6HH *ULVZROG Y &RQQHFWLFXW 8 6

–

ULJKW RI

PDUULHG FRXSOHV WR FRQWUDFHSWLRQ /RYLQJ Y 9LUJLQLD 8 6

ULJKW WR PDUU\

2EHUJHIHOO Y +RGJHV 6 &W

ULJKW WR VDPH VH[ PDUULDJH ,W DOVR SURWHFWV

DJDLQVW LQWHUIHUHQFHV ZLWK WKH ULJKW WR UHDU FKLOGUHQ “>7@KH ULJKW RI SDUHQWV WR ‘HVWDEOLVK D KRPH

DQG EULQJ XS FKLOGUHQ’ DQG ‘WR FRQWURO WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI WKHLU RZQ’” LV “SHUKDSV WKH ROGHVW RI WKH

IXQGDPHQWDO OLEHUW\ LQWHUHVWV UHFRJQL]HG E\ WK>H@ >6XSUHPH@ &RXUW ” 7UR[HO Y *UDQYLOOH

86

VHH 0H\HU 8 6 DW – UHFRJQL]LQJ ULJKW RI SDUHQWV WR KDYH WKHLU

FKLOG OHDUQ WKH *HUPDQ ODQJXDJH Pierce v. Soc’\ RI WKH 6LVWHUV RI WKH +RO\ 1DPHV RI -HVXV

0DU\ 8 6

–

(recognizing fundamental right “RI SDUHQWV DQG JXDUGLDQV WR

GLUHFW WKH XSEULQJLQJ DQG HGXFDWLRQ RI FKLOGUHQ XQGHU WKHLU FRQWURl”)

7KHVH FDVHV DQG RWKHUV HVWDEOLVK WKDW WKH 'XH 3URFHVV &ODXVH SURYLGHV KHLJKWHQHG

SURWHFWLRQ DJDLQVW JRYHUQPHQW LQWHUIHUHQFH ZLWK WKH LQWHJULW\ RI WKH XQLWDU\ IDPLO\ *RYHUQPHQW

FRQGXFW WKDW LQWHUIHUHV ZLWK WKLV IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW PXVW EH QDUURZO\ WDLORUHG WR IXUWKHU D

FRPSHOOLQJ JRYHUQPHQW LQWHUHVW ( J =DEORFNL Y 5HGKDLO 8 6

0RRUH Y

&LW\ RI ( &OHYHODQG 8 6

VHH DOVR %URNDZ Y 0HUFHU &W\ ) G

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 27 of 40

– WK &LU

(collecting cases recognizing the “FRQVWLWXWLRQDO ULJKW WR IDPLOLDO

UHODWLRQV”)

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU FRQWUDYHQHV the Due Process Clause’s SURKLELWLRQ DJDLQVW

XQZDUUDQWHG JRYHUQPHQWDO LQWUXVLRQV ZLWK WKH “FRQVWLWXWional right to familial relations.”

%URNDZ ) G DW

,W interferes with Plaintiff’s fundamental right WR IDPLO\ LQWHJULW\ E\

PDNLQJ LW LPSRVVLEOH IRU KLP WR UHXQLWH ZLWK KLV ZLIH DQG \RXQJ FKLOG 0RUHRYHU 3ODLQWLII

FDQQRW UHWXUQ WR WKHP ZLWKRXW IDFLQJ IXUWKHU WRUWXUH DQG OLNHO\ GHDWK DV WKH *RYHUQPHQW IRXQG LQ

JUDQWLQJ KLP DV\OXP

7R LQWHUIHUH ZLWK Plaintiff’s IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW WR IDPLO\ LQWHJULW\ LQ WKLV ZD\ WKH

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU PXVW EH QDUURZO\ WDLORUHG WR DGYDQFH D FRPSHOOLQJ VWDWH LQWHUHVW 6HH H J

=DEORFNL 8 6 DW %XW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU IOXQNV WKDW WHVW EHFDXVH LW LV ERWK RYHU DQG

XQGHU LQFOXVLYH LQ DFKLHYLQJ LWV SXUSRUWHG MXVWLILFDWLRQ RI SURWHFWLQJ DJDLQVW WKH HQWU\ RI

WHUURULVWV 7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV RYHU LQFOXVLYH EHFDXVH LW HQVQDUHV LPPLJUDQWV ZLWK QR

SRVVLEOH FRQQHFWLRQ WR WHUURULVP Plaintiff’s daughter is a case in point WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU KHUH

VHUYHV RQO\ WR SURWHFW $PHULFD IURP WKH QRQ H[LVWHQW WKUHDW RI D VLFN WKUHH \HDU ROG JLUO HQWHULQJ

WKH FRXQWU\ WR EH UHXQLWHG ZLWK KHU IDWKHU $V RQH FRXUW SXW LW “>L@W LV EH\RQG UHDVRQDEOH

DUJXPHQW WR FRQWHQG WKDW D SROLF\ WKDW SXUSRUWHGO\ GHWHUV >6\ULDQ@ IRXU \HDU ROGV IURP UHVHWWOLQJ

LV QDUURZO\ WDLORUHG WR VHUYH WKH . asserted interest in public safety.” ([RGXV 5HIXJHH

,PPLJUDWLRQ ,QF Y 3HQFH ) 6XSS G

6 ' ,QG aff’d ) G

WK &LU

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV DOVR GUDVWLFDOO\ XQGHU LQFOXVLYH $V WKH 6HYHQWK &LUFXLW H[SODLQHG UHFHQWO\ LQ 3HQFH, “no Syrian refugees have been arrested RU SURVHFXWHG IRU WHUURULVW acts or attempts in the United States.” 838 F.3d at 904 1RU KDYH DQ\ IDWDO WHUURULVW DWWDFNV EHHQ

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 28 of 40

FRPPLWWHG LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV E\ D QDWLRQDO RI DQ\ RI WKH VL[ FRXQWULHV FRYHUHG E\ 6HFWLRQ F

LQ DW OHDVW WKH SDVW TXDUWHU FHQWXU\ 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([V . 6 &RQYHUVHO\ QDWLRQDOV

IURP RWKHU FRXQWULHV QRW VXEMHFW WR WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU KDYH SHUSHWUDWHG IDWDO DWWDFNV LQ WKH

8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQ WKH ODVW WZR GHFDGHV ,G 1RQH RI WKH SHUSHWUDWRUV RI WKH 6HSWHPEHU WK

%RVWRQ 0DUDWKRQ 6DQ %HUQDUGLQR RU 2UODQGR DWWDFNV FDPH IURP 6\ULD RU DQ\ RI WKH RWKHU ILYH

DIIHFWHG FRXQWULHV

,Q IDFW LQ WZR VHSDUDWH LQWHUQDO PHPRUDQGD ZULWWHQ EHWZHHQ 3Uesident Trump’s two

H[HFXWLYH RUGHUV WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI +RPHODQG 6HFXULW\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

ZRXOG QRW PDWHULDOO\ advance the Government’s national VHFXULW\ LQWHUHVWV '+6 FRQFOXGHG WKDW

“most foreign ERUQ 86 EDVHG YLROHQW H[WUHPLVWV OLNHO\ UDGLFDOL]HG VHYHUDO \HDUV DIWHU WKHLU HQWU\

WR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV OLPLWLQJ WKH DELOLW\ RI VFUHHQLQJ DQG YHWWLQJ RIILFLDOV WR SUHYHQW WKHLU HQWU\

because of national security concerns.” 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  (YHQ LI H[WUHPLVWV FRXOG

EH LGHQWLILed and screened before entry, the Executive Order’s focus on nationality would be

LQDSW EHFDXVH DV '+6 H[SODLQHG “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of

SRWHQWLDO WHUURULVt activity.” Second Breidenbach Decl. ¶ ,QGHHG RI WKH HLJKW\ WZR 8 6

UHVLGHQWV '+6 LGHQWLILHG DV KDYLQJ EHHQ LQYROYHG LQ WHUURULVP UHODWHG RIIHQVHV VLQFH WKH

EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH 6\ULDQ FRQIOLFW QRW RQH FDPH IURP 6\ULD ,G

,Q OLJKW RI WKH IHHEOH QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WKH

*RYHUQPHQW KDV DUJXHG LQ FDVHV FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU WKDW LWV MXVWLILFDWLRQV PXVW RQO\

be “facially legitimate and bona fide” ZKHUH LPPLJUDWLRQ LV DW VWDNH )LDOOR Y %HOO 8 6

.OHLQGLHQVW Y 0DQGHO 8 6

%XW DV WKH 1LQWK &LUFXLW

UHFHQWO\ KHOG LQ UHMHFWLQJ WKLV DUJXPHQW WKDW PRUH OLPLWHG VWDQGDUG RI UHYLHZ DSSOLHV RQO\ WR

“lawsuits challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 29 of 40

EDVHG RQ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D FRQJUHVVLRQDOO\ HQXPHUDWHG VWDQGDUG WR WKH SDUWLFXODU IDFWV

SUHVHQWHG E\ WKDW YLVD DSSOLFDWLRQ ” QRW WR DOO H[HFXWLYH H[HUFLVHV RI LPPLJUDWLRQ DXWKRULW\

7UXPS ) G DW

VHH DOVR )LDOOR 8 6 DW – FKDOOHQJLQJ VWDWXWRU\ VFKHPH

setting out special preference immigration status to aliens who qualify as the “children” or

“parents” of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents). 0DQGHO’s deferential standard

RI UHYLHZ WDLORUHG WR LQGLYLGXDO H[HUFLVHV RI ([HFXWLYH GLVFUHWLRQ DXWKRUL]HG E\ SUH H[LVWLQJ ODZ

LV LOO HTXLSSHG WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH P\ULDG LQWHUHVWV LPSOLFDWHG E\ WKH VZHHSLQJ XQSUHFHGHQWHG

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU 7UXPS ) G DW – 0DQGHO SURYLGHV QR EDVLV WR RYHUULGH QHDUO\ D

FHQWXU\ RI FDVHV SURWHFWLQJ WKH IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKWV RI SHUVRQV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV IURP

XQZDUUDQWHG LQFXUVLRQV LQWR WKH IDPLOLDO XQLW

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU DOVR YLRODWHV WKH 'XH 3URFHVV &ODXVH EHFDXVH LW GHSULYHV 3ODLQWLII

RI DGHTXDWH SURFHGXUHV 6HH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y 6DOHUQR 8 6

(“When

JRYHUQPHQW DFWLRQ GHSULYLQJ D SHUVRQ RI OLIH OLEHUW\ RU SURSHUW\ VXUYLYHV VXEVWDQWLYH GXH

process scrutiny, it must still be implemented in a fair manner.” FLWLQJ 0DWKHZV Y (OGULGJH

86

). Plaintiff’s procedural due proceVV ULJKW LQ KLV GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV

LV GLUHFWO\ LPSOLFDWHG E\ KLV IXQGDPHQWDO OLEHUW\ LQWHUHVW LQ IDPLO\ LQWHJULW\ &I %XVWDPDQWH Y

0XNDVH\ ) G

WK &LU

MRLQLQJ WKH )LUVW 6HFRQG DQG ' & &LUFXLWV WR

,Q DQ\ HYHQW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU FDQQRW SDVV PXVWHU HYHQ XQGHU WKH 0DQGHO WHVW

“[P]rotecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry” is a facially legitimate reason to exclude

FHUWDLQ FODVVHV RI DOLHQV %XW WKHUH LV RYHUZKHOPLQJ HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH UHDO UHDVRQ IRU WKH

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV DQWL 0XVOLP DQLPXV 6HH LQIUD DW – . Therefore, Defendants’ asserted

MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV QRW ERQD ILGH DQG FDQQRW VWDQG 6HH :RQJ :LQJ +DQJ Y

,16 ) G

G &LU

)ULHQGO\ - H[HFXWLYH LPPLJUDWLRQ GHFLVLRQV FDQQRW UHVW

on “invidious discrimination against a particular race or group”).

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 30 of 40
KROG WKDW D 8 6 FLWL]HQ UDLVLQJ D FRQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDOOHQJH WR WKH GHQLDO RI D YLVD WR KHU KXVEDQG LV HQWLWOHG WR D OLPLWHG MXGLFLDO LQTXLU\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKH GHFLVLRQ
7KHUH DUH WKUHH JHQHUDO IDFWRUV WKDW FRXUWV ZHLJK WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH SURFHVV DW LVVXH LV FRQVWLWXWLRQDO WKH SULYDWH LQWHUHVW DIIHFWHG E\ WKH RIILFLDO DFWLRQV WKH ULVN RI DQ HUURQHRXV GHSULYDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUHVW DQG WKH YDOXH LI DQ\ RI DGGLWLRQDO RU VXEVWLWXWH SURFHGXUDO safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens the DGGLWLRQDO RU VXEVWLWXWH SURFHGXUDO UHTXLUHPHQWV ZRXOG LPSRVH (OGULGJH 8 6 DW :KDWHYHU SURFHVV LV GXH KHUH KRZHYHU WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU GRHV QRW SURYLGH LW — LW SURYLGHV QR SURFHVV DW DOO DV WKH 1LQWK &LUFXLW UHFHQWO\ observed in denying the Government’s motion for a WHPSRUDU\ VWD\ 6HH 7UXPS ) G DW (“[T]he Government does not contend that the Order provides for such process.”). Accordingly, the Executive Order, as applied to Plaintiff’s SHQGLQJ SHWLWLRQV Ior derivative asylum, violates Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights.

)RXU PHPEHUV RI WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW UHFHQWO\ DJUHHG ZLWK WKLV UXOH LQ .HUU\ Y 'LQ

6 &W

%UH\HU - GLVVHQWLQJ ,Q 'LQ -XVWLFHV .HQQHG\ DQG $OLWR IRXQG LW

XQQHFHVVDU\ WR GHFLGH ZKHWKHU WKHUH ZDV VXFK D ULJKW EHFDXVH WKH\ EHOLHYHG WKH JRYHUQPHQW KDG

JUDQWHG DGHTXDWH SURFHVV XQGHU WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV RI WKH FDVH

'HIHQGDQWV KDYH QHYHU H[SODLQHG ZK\ H[LVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV DUH LQDGHTXDWH WR FRQVLGHU

SHQGLQJ GHULYDWLYH DV\OXP SHWLWLRQV 5HIXJHHV DQG DV\OHHV DUH DOUHDG\ subject to “the highest

level of background and security checks of any category of traveler to the United States,” in a

process that often takes years to complete, and Syrian applicants are subject to “enhanced

review.” Breidenbach Decl. Ex. DD. Indeed, WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV OLNHO\ WR XQGHUPLQH 8 6

QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ LQWHUHVWV 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO ([ ; -RLQW 'HFODUDWLRQ RI 0DGHOHLQH .

$OEULJKW HW DO 7UXPS 1R

GHWDLOLQJ KRZ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZLOO HQGDQJHU 8 6

WURRSV DQG LQWHOOLJHQFH VRXUFHV GLVUXSW NH\ FRXQWHUWHUURULVP IRUHLJQ SROLF\ DQG QDWLRQDO

security partnerships; and “feed the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that

portray the United States as at war with Islam”).

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 31 of 40

&  7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 9,2/$7(6 7+( (67$%/,6+0(17 &/$86( $1' (48$/ 3527(&7,21 %< ',63523257,21$7(/< %85'(1,1* 086/,06 %$6(' 21 $17, 086/,0 $1,086

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU DOVR YLRODWHV WKH Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s

JXDUDQWHH RI (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ EHFDXVH LW GRHV ZKDW LW ZDV LQWHQGHG WR GR GLVIDYRU ,VODP 7KH

Establishment Clause’s “clearest command” is that “one religious denomination cannot be

RIILFLDOO\ SUHIHUUHG RYHU another.” /DUVRQ Y 9DOHQWH 8 6

. “This

prohibition is absolute.” ,G DW (YHQ D IDFLDOO\ QHXWUDO ODZ YLRODWHV WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW

&ODXVH ZKHQ LW “(1) lacks a legitimate secular purpose; (2) has the primary effect of advancing or

inhibiting religion; or (3) fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” 'RH H[ UHO 'RH Y

(OPEURRN 6FKRRO 'LVW ) G

WK &LU

FLWLQJ /HPRQ Y .XUW]PDQ 8 6

–

VHH DOVR 6FKRRO 'LVW RI $ELQJGRQ 7ZS Y 6FKHPS 8 6

(“TKH WHVW PD\ EH VWDWHG DV IROORZV ZKDW DUH WKH SXUSRVH DQG WKH SULPDU\ HIIHFW RI WKH

HQDFWPHQW" ,I HLWKHU LV WKH DGYDQFHPHQW RU LQKLELWLRQ RI UHOLJLRQ WKHQ WKH HQDFWPHQW H[FHHGV WKH

VFRSH RI OHJLVODWLYH SRZHU DV FLUFXPVFULEHG E\ WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ ”). Similarly, WKH )LIWK

Amendment’s (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ JXDUDQWHH IRUELGV IDFLDOO\ QHXWUDO ODZV WKDW KDYH D

“disproportionately adverse effect” on a suspect class LQFOXGLQJ D UHOLJLRXV GHQRPLQDWLRQ LI WKH

“impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.” Personnel Adm’r RI 0DVV Y )HHQH\

86

VHH 9LVLRQ &KXUFK Y 9LOO RI /RQJ *URYH ) G

WK &LU

Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is PDWHULDOO\ GLVWLQFW IURP WKH FODLP IRXQG

XQOLNHO\ WR VXFFHHG IRU ODFN RI VWDQGLQJ LQ /RXKJKDODP Y 7UXPS 1R FY

:/

DW – ' 0DVV )HE

8QOLNH WKH /RXKJKDODP SODLQWLIIV 3ODLQWLII LV DOUHDG\

LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DQG LV VHHNLQJ DGPLVVLRQ IRU KLV IDPLO\ WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WKXV GLUHFWO\

DIIHFWV KLV ULJKW WR OLYH ZLWK KLV ZLIH DQG GDXJKWHU 3ODLQWLII SODLQO\ KDV VWDQGLQJ WR HQIRUFH KLV

RZQ FRQVWLWXWLRQDO ULJKWV

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 32 of 40

7R GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU D IDFLDOO\ QHXWUDO ODZ XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ EXUGHQV D UHOLJLRQ RU

RWKHUZLVH YLRODWHV WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW &ODXVH D FRXUW VKRXOG DVN KRZ D UHDVRQDEOH REVHUYHU ZRXOG

XQGHUVWDQG WKH ODZ LQ OLJKW RI LWV FRQWH[W 6HH 0F&UHDU\ &W\ Y $&/8 RI .\ 8 6

–

7KH &RXUW PD\ WKXV consider “the historical background of the decision under

FKDOOHQJH WKH VSHFLILF VHULHV RI HYHQWV OHDGLQJ WR WKH HQDFWPHQW RU RIILFLDO SROLF\ LQ TXHVWLRQ DQG

WKH OHJLVODWLYH RU DGPLQLVWUDWLYH KLVWRU\ LQFOXGLQJ FRQWHPSRUDQHRXV VWDWHPHQWV PDGH E\

PHPEHUV of the decisionmaking body.” &KXUFK RI /XNDPL %DEDOX $\H ,QF Y &LW\ RI +LDOHDK

86

VHH 7UXPS, 847 F.3d at 1167 (“[I]t is well established that evidence of

SXUSRVH EH\RQG WKH IDFH RI WKH FKDOOHQJHG ODZ PD\ EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ HYDOXDWLQJ (VWDEOLVKPHQW

and Equal Protection Clause claims.” :KHQ “openly available data VXSSRUW>V@ D FRPPRQVHQVH

conclusion that a religious objective permeated the government’s action,” LW LV XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO

0F&UHDU\ 8 6 DW VHH DOVR 9LOO RI $UOLQJWRQ +HLJKWV Y 0HWUR +RXVLQJ 'HY &RUS

86

–

(“:KHQ WKHUH LV D SURRI WKDW D GLVFULPLQDWRU\ SXUSRVH KDV EHHQ D

PRWLYDWLQJ IDFWRU LQ WKH GHFLVLRQ … MXGLFLDO GHIHUHQFH >WR WKH SROLWLFDO SURFHVV@ LV QR ORQJHU

MXVWLILHG.”)

+HUH WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU YLRODWHV WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s

(TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ JXDUDQWHH EHFDXVH LW KDV WKH SXUSRVH DQG HIIHFW RI GLVIDYRULQJ 0XVOLPV 6HH

$]L]

:/

DW – ILQGLQJ WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU OLNHO\ YLRODWHG WKH (VWDEOLVKPHQW

&ODXVH 6HFWLRQ F RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU VHOI HYLGHQWO\ EXUGHQV 0XVOLPV PRUH KDUVKO\ WKDQ

DQ\ RWKHU UHOLJLRXV JURXS E\ EDUULQJ HQWU\ IURP H[FOXVLYHO\ 0XVOLP PDMRULW\ FRXQWULHV 6HH

/DUVRQ 8 6 DW KROGLQJ WKH government may not impose “burdens . . . upon particular

GHQRPLQDWLRQV”)

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 33 of 40

7KLV GLVSDUDWH LPSDFW RQ 0XVOLPV LV QR DFFLGHQW LW LV WKH Executive Order’s LQWHQGHG

HIIHFW WKH FXOPLQDWLRQ RI D SXEOLF KLVWRU\ RI DQLPXV WRZDUG 0XVOLPV $V D FDQGLGDWH 3UHVLGHQW

7UXPS H[SUHVVHG KRVWLOLW\ WRZDUG 0XVOLPV DQG SOHGJHG — ORXGO\ DQG UHSHDWHGO\ — WR EDQ WKHP

IURP HQWHULQJ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  – 7UXPS ) G DW

FLWLQJ

“numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ as well as

evidence . . . that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban”) $]L]

:/

DW

–9 (summarizing the President’s anti 0XVOLP DQLPXV 7KH -DQXDU\ H[HFXWLYH RUGHU ZDV

KLV DWWHPSW WR HQDFW KLV SURPLVHG 0XVOLP EDQ %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  7KDW RUGHU IDFLDOO\

GLVFULPLQDWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI UHOLJLRQ E\ EDUULQJ HQWU\ IURP 0XVOLP PDMRULW\ FRXQWULHV ZKLOH

VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ SULRULWL]LQJ members of the “minority religion in the individual’s country of

nationality.” -DQ 2UGHU  F E H $QG 3UHVLGHQW 7UXPS PDGH FOHDU WKDW WKH RUGHU

ZDV LQWHQGHG WR IDYRU &KULVWLDQV DW WKH H[SHQVH RI 0XVOLPV 6HH %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  14 (“[W]e

DUH JRLQJ WR KHOS >&KULVWLDns].”).

7KLV KLVWRU\ ZKLFK LV IXUWKHU GHWDLOHG LQ WKH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ DIILGDYLWV IDWDOO\ LQIHFWV WKH

QHZ ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU $V WKH :KLWH +RXVH KDV DGPLWWHG WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU ZDV LQWHQGHG WR

DQG GRHV UHSODFH WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU ZLWKRXW DOWHULQJ LWV JRYHUQLQJ “policy” or “principles” in

DQ\ ZD\ 6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO 

:KDW VSHDNV YROXPHV KHUH LV WKH IDFW WKDW WKH

'HSDUWPHQW RI +RPHODnd Security was tasked with bolstering the Executive Order’s national

VHFXULW\ MXVWLILFDWLRQ DQG FDPH XS HPSW\ KDQGHG RQ QRW RQH EXW WZR RFFDVLRQV FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW

“country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator RI SRWHQWLDO WHUURULVW DFWLYLW\ ”

6HFRQG %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO  ,I WKH Executive Order’s UHDO JRDO ZDV WR IDFLOLWDWH D VWXG\ RI

YHWWLQJ SURFHGXUHV WKH *RYHUQPHQW SUHVXPDEO\ ZRXOG KDYH FKDQQHOHG LWV UHVRXUFHV WRZDUG WKDW

REMHFWLYH UDWKHU WKDQ PDQXIDFWXULQJ SRVW KRF MXVWLILFDWLRQV for the President’s anti 0XVOLP

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 34 of 40

FDPSDLJQ SURPLVHV %XW WKHUH LV QR LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKH *RYHUQPHQW KDV PDGH DQ\ SURJUHVV LQ

WKDW UHVSHFW JLYHQ WKDW WKH QHZ RUGHU ZKLFK JRHV LQWR HIIHFW IRUW\ HLJKW GD\V DIWHU 3UHVLGHQW

7UXPS ILUVW FDOOHG IRU WKH *RYHUQPHQW WR FRQGXFW D QLQHW\ GD\ VWXG\ — PRUH WKDQ KDOIZD\ LQWR

WKH RULJLQDO WLPH SHULRG — VWDUWV WKH QLQHW\ GD\ FORFN DQHZ

,Q VXP WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU IROORZV IURP WKH VDPH H[SUHVVLRQV RI DQWL 0XVOLP DQLPXV DV

WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU DQG LWV EDU RQ HQWU\ IURP 0XVOLP PDMRULW\ FRXQWULHV GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\

EXUGHQV 0XVOLPV LQ SUHFLVHO\ WKH VDPH ZD\ $V VXFK WKH ([HFXWive Order’s representation that

LW GRHV QRW WDUJHW 0XVOLPV VHH ([HF 2UGHU  E LY LV D OLWLJDWLRQ GULYHQ “sham” XQGHVHUYLQJ

RI MXGLFLDO UHVSHFW 0F&UHDU\ 8 6 DW VHH $]L]

:/

DW Q

(disregarding “post hoc statements . that this is not a Muslim ban” because “[s]uch

UDWLRQDOL]DWLRQV are typically afforded little weight in an intent inquiry”) $V WKH 6XSUHPH

Court has explained, “tKH ZRUOG LV QRW PDGH EUDQG QHZ HYHU\ PRUQLQJ ” DQG FRXUWV PD\ QRW

“turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” 0F&UHDU\ 8 6 DW

LQWHUQDO TXRWDWLRQ PDUN RPLWWHG Here, the Executive Order’s KLVWRU\ PDNHV FOHDU WKDW LW ZDV

LQWHQGHG WR GR H[DFWO\ ZKDW LW GRHV GLVFULPLQDWH DJDLQVW 0XVOLPV ,W WKHUHIRUH YLRODWHV WKH

(VWDEOLVKPHQW &ODXVH DQG (TXDO 3URWHFWLRQ DQG VKRXOG EH HQMRLQHG

'  7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 81&2167,787,21$//< ',6&5,0,1$7(6 21 7+( %$6,6 2) 1$7,21$/,7<

:KHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WKH IDFW WKDW D UHOLJLRQ EDVHG “0XVOLP EDQ” LV XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO

WKHQ FDQGLGDWH 7UXPS WULHG WR SLYRW E\ FKDUDFWHUL]LQJ KLV SURSRVDO DV D EDQ WKDW GLVFULPLQDWHV RQ

the basis of “territory” or national origin, responding flippantly: “So you call it territories, ok?

We’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria.” %UHLGHQEDFK 'HFO

 (( (YHQ ORRNLQJ SDVW WKH IDFW WKDW WKLV ZDV D FKDQJH LQ QDPH RQO\ DQG LV FHUWDLQO\ QRW ERQD

ILGH WKLV SLYRW IURP UHOLJLRQ WR QDWLRQDOLW\ GLG QRWKLQJ WR DOWHU the policy’s unconstitutionality.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 35 of 40
,QGHHG FODVVLILFDWLRQV EDVHG RQ QDWLRQDO RULJLQ DUH DOVR LQKHUHQWO\ VXVSHFW DQG VXEMHFW WR VWULFW VFUXWLQ\ &LW\ RI &OHEXUQH Y &OHEXUQH /LYLQJ &WU 8 6
7KHUH FDQ EH QR TXHVWLRQ WKDW WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU IDFLDOO\ GLVFULPLQDWHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI QDWLRQDO RULJLQ E\ EDUULQJ DOO HQWU\ IRU QRQ FLWL]HQV IURP 6\ULD DQG ILYH RWKHU LGHQWLILHG FRXQWULHV ([HF 2UGHU  F $V WKH 6HYHQWK &LUFXLW UHFHQWO\ UHFRJQL]HG LQ LQYDOLGDWLQJ WKHQ *RYHUQRU QRZ Vice President) Pence’s denial of IHGHUDO UHVHWWOHPHQW IXQGV IRU 6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV VXFK distinctions are illegal “discrimination on the basis of nationality.” 3HQFH ) G DW :ULWLQJ IRU WKH &RXUW RI $SSHDOV -XGJH 3RVQHU GLG QRW PLQFH ZRUGV
>,Q GHIHQGLQJ WKH RUGHU 3HQFH@ DUJXHV WKDW KLV SROLF\ RI H[FOXGLQJ 6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV LV EDVHG QRW RQ QDWLRQDOLW\ DQG WKXV LV QRW GLVFULPLQDWRU\ EXW LV EDVHG VROHO\ RQ WKH WKUHDW KH WKLQNV WKH\ SRVH WR WKH VDIHW\ RI UHVLGHQWV RI ,QGLDQD %XW that’V WKH HTXLYDOHQW RI KLV VD\LQJ QRW WKDW KH GRHV VD\ WKDW KH ZDQWV WR IRUELG EODFN SHRSOH WR VHWWOH LQ ,QGLDQD QRW EHFDXse they’re black but because he’V DIUDLG RI WKHP DQG VLQFH UDFH LV therefore not his motive he isn’W GLVFULPLQDWLQJ %XW WKDW RI FRXUVH ZRXOG EH UDFLDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQ MXVW DV KLV WDUJHWLQJ 6\ULDQ UHIXJHHV LV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI QDWLRQDOLW\ ,G DW – 6R WRR KHUH $QG EHFDXVH WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU GLVFULPLQDWHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI QDWLRQDO RULJLQ LW PXVW VDWLVI\ VWULFW VFUXWLQ\ %XW GHIHQGDQWV FDQ RIIHU QR FRPSHOOLQJ JRYHUQPHQW LQWHUHVW WR MXVWLI\ VXFK EODWDQW GLVFULPLQDWLRQ (YHQ LI WKH &ourt were to accept the Executive Order’s purported QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ MXVWLILFDWLRQ — and, under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in 3HQFH WKH &RXUW FRXOG QRW — WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV DV SUHYLRXVO\ H[SODLQHG QRW QDUURZO\ WDLORUHG WR DGYDQFH WKDW LQWHUHVW ,W LV ERWK RYHU DQG XQGHU LQFOXVLYH GHSULYLQJ DOO VRUWV RI SHUVRQV IURP HQWU\ LQWR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLS WR WHUURULVP VXFK Ds Plaintiff’s ZLIH DQG WKUHH \HDU ROG GDXJKWHU 6HH VXSUD DW – (YHQ D OHVVHU OHYHO RI VFUXWLQ\ ZRXOG QRW FKDQJH WKLV FRQFOXVLRQ “The Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 36 of 40

XQpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group.” 8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y :LQGVRU

6 &W

TXRWLQJ 8 6 'ep’t of Agric. v. Moreno 8 6

–

7he “sheer breadth” of the Executive Order — EDUULQJ DOO 6\ULDQV — LV “so

GLVFRQWLQXRXV ZLWK WKH UHDVRQV RIIHUHG IRU LW” — SURWHFWLQJ WKH QDWLRQ IURP WHUURULVW HQWU\ —

“that [it] seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects.” 5RPHU Y

(YDQV 8 6

7KH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU thus lacks even “a ratLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS

to legitimate state interests.” ,G

(  7+( *29(510(17 &$1127 -867,)< 7+( (;(&87,9( 25'(5 %$6(' 21 62 &$//(' 35(6,'(17,$/ 32:(56

,Q FDVHV FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH -DQXDU\ RUGHU WKH *RYHUQPHQW WRRN WKH SRVLWLRQ WKDW WKH

([HFXWLYH 2UGHU KRZHYHU XQODZIXO RU XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO LW PLJKW EH LQ RWKHU FRQWH[WV LV

QHYHUWKHOHVV D YDOLG — DQG XQUHYLHZDEOH — exercise of the President’s power over foreign

DIIDLUV 1RW VR

“UQGHU $UWLFOH 6HFWLRQ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV &RQVWLWXWLRQ &RQJUHVV LV HPSRZHUHG WR

HVWDElish standards for immigration.” 8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y 7LWWMXQJ ) G

WK &LU

HPSKDVLV DGGHG 7R EH VXUH WKH 3UHVLGHQW UHFHLYHV D ODUJH GHJUHH RI GHIHUHQFH RQ

PDWWHUV FRQFHUQLQJ LPPLJUDWLRQ DQG QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ %XW WKH 3UHVLGHQW PD\ QRW VXVSHQG

FRQVWLWXWLRQDO RU VWDWXWRU\ PDQGDWHV HYHQ LQ WKH LPPLJUDWLRQ DQG QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ FRQWH[W

6HH H J LG (“[T]KH IDFW WKDW &RQJUHVV GHOHJDWHG DXWKRULW\ WR WKH ([HFXWLYH WR RYHUVHH PDWWHUV RI

LPPLJUDWLRQ GRHV QRW PHDQ WKDW WKH $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO ZDV SURYLGHG ZLWK H[FOXVLYH FRQWURO IRU

WKH HQWLUH DUHD ”); =LYRWRIVN\ 6 &W DW (“The Executive is not free from the ordinary

controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.”) +DPGL Y

5XPVIHOG 8 6

SOXUDOLW\ RSLQLRQ $QG, “in time of war as well as in time of

SHDFH ” the Judiciary has a duty “WR SUHVHUYH XQLPSDLUHG WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO VDIHJXDUGV RI FLYLO

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 37 of 40

liberty.” ([ SDUWH 4XLULQ 8 6

VHH DOVR <RXQJVWRZQ 6KHHW 7XEH &R Y

6DZ\HU 8 6

–

KROGLQJ WKH President may not seize the nation’s steel

PLOOV PHUHO\ E\ SURFODPDWLRQ HYen upon finding that such a seizure “ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR DYHUW D

QDWLRQDO FDWDVWURSKH,” and even where steel was “DQ LQGLVSHQVDEOH FRPSRQHQW RI VXEVWDQWLDOO\ DOO

ZHDSRQV DQG RWKHU PDWHULDOV” necessary for the United States in an ongoing war)

7KH 3UHsident’s Article II authority FDQQRW DEULGJH $UWLFOH , RU WKH %LOO RI 5LJKWV 1RU

can the Executive’s so called “plenary powers” EH XVHG WR UHZULWH 8 6 ODZ LQ RUGHU WR IXOILOO D

FDPSDLJQ SURPLVH RI EDQQLQJ 0XVOLPV IURP WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6LPSO\ SXW WKH QHZ ([HFXWLYH

2UGHU LV LOOHJDO $V ZLWK WKH RQH WKDW LW UHSODFHG LW VKRXOG be enjoined to protect Plaintiff’s

LQWHUHVW LQ UHXQLWLQJ ZLWK KLV ZLIH DQG WKUHH \HDU ROG GDXJKWHU

,,  3/$,17,)) 67$1'6 72 68))(5 ,55(3$5$%/( ,1-85< $1' 7+( (48,7,(6 67521*/< 7,/7 ,1 +,6 )$925

1H[W LW LV FOHDU WKDW 3ODLQWLII VDWLVILHV WKH UHVW RI WKH WHVW IRU REWDLQLQJ D WHPSRUDU\

UHVWUDLQLQJ RUGHU RU SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLRQ JLYHQ WKH LPPHGLDWH WKUHDW WR KLP DQG KLV ZLIH DQG

\RXQJ FKLOG

$V D JHQHUDO PDWWHU WKH PHUH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D FRQVWLWXWLRQDO YLRODWLRQ RI WKH VRUW DW

LVVXH KHUH HVWDEOLVKHV ERWK LUUHSDUDEOH LQMXU\ DQG WKDW WKH EDODQFH RI WKH HTXLWLHV VXSSRUWV HQWU\ RI

DQ LQMXQFWLRQ &RQVWLWXWLRQDO YLRODWLRQV DUH SUHVXPHG WR UHVXOW LQ LUUHSDUDEOH KDUP (]HOO Y &LW\

RI &KLFDJR ) G

WK &LU

Similarly, it is “always in the public interest” to

HQMRLQ XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO FRQGXFW -RHOQHU Y 9LOO RI :DVK 3DUN ) G

WK &LU

6HH H J (OURG Y %XUQV 8 6

)LUVW $PHQGPHQW 3UHVWRQ Y

7KRPSVRQ ) G

WK &LU

Milwaukee Cty. Pavers Ass’Q Y )LHGOHU )

6XSS

: ' :LV PRGLILHG ) 6XSS

: ' :LV

HTXDO

SURWHFWLRQ -HVVHQ Y 9LOO RI /\QGRQ 6WDWLRQ ) 6XSS

: ' :LV

HTXDO

SURWHFWLRQ GXH SURFHVV DQG )LUVW $PHQGPHQW

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 38 of 40

LQWHUQDO TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV RPLWWHG VHH DOVR 3UHVWRQ Y 7KRPSVRQ ) G

Q

WK &LU

(stating that remedying a “continuing constitutional violation . . . certainly would

serve the public interest”). Given Plaintiff’s strong showing on the merits, the Court should

HQWHU LPPHGLDWH UHOLHI QRZ WR SUHVHUYH WKH VWDWXV TXR

%XW WKLV FDVH SUHVHQWV D SDUWLFXODUO\ SURQRXQFHG VKRZLQJ WKDW LPPHGLDWH LQMXQFWLYH UHOLHI

LV ZDUUDQWHG $V courts in this and other Circuits have recognized, separation from one’s ZLIH

DQG FKLOG FRQVWLWXWHV LUUHSDUDEOH KDUP 3ODLQWLII KDV QRW VHHQ KLV ZLIH LQ WKUHH \HDUV +H KDV

not experienced any of the crucial “firsts” in his daughter’s life: her first smile, her first steps, her

ILUVW ZRUGV +H FRXOG QRW EH ZLWK KLV IDPLO\ WR EXU\ DQG PRXUQ KLV VRQ KH PXVW JULHYH DORQH

$QG $OHSSR UHPDLQV D KXPDQLWDULDQ GLsaster. Its residents, including Plaintiff’s family, lack

DFFHVV WR DGHTXDWH IRRG VKHOWHU DQG RWKHU EDVLF VHUYLFHV Plaintiff’s daughter is ill without

DFFHVV WR EDVLF PHGLFDO FDUH 7KH 6$$ ZKRVH PHPEHUV threatened to rape Plaintiff’s wife LV

VWLOO DFWLYH DQG LQ FRQWURO RI WKH QHLJKERUKRRG ZKHUH VKH UHPDLQV LQ KLGLQJ WRR WHUULILHG WR ULVN

JRLQJ RXWVLGH DEVHQW DQ HPHUJHQF\ $V ORQJ DV WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU LV LQ HIIHFW 3ODLQWLII ZLOO

OLYH HYHU\ GD\ QRW NQRZLQJ LI KH ZLOO HYHU VHH KLV IDPLO\ DJDLQ +LV LQMXU\ LV QRW VXEMHFW WR

VHULRXV GLVSXWH

( J /HLYD 3HUH] Y +ROGHU ) G

WK &LU

$QGUHLX Y $VKFURIW

)G

WK &LU

HQ EDQF 5DPLUH] 9LFDULR Y $FKLP 1R &

:/

DW 1 ' ,OO )HE

2PDU Y .HUU\ 1R &9

-6&

:/

DW 1 ' &DO 2FW

3LQJ 3LQJ =KRX Y .DQH 1R &9

3+; '*&

(&9

:/

DW ' $UL] 0D\

7KH SRWHQWLDO DYDLODELOLW\ RI D ZDLYHU IURP WKH WUDYHO EDQ ([HF 2UGHU  F GRHV QRW FKDQJH WKLV FRQFOXVLRQ 7KH PHUH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH *RYHUQPHQW PD\ YROXQWDULO\ UHOLHYH D SDUW\ IURP DQ XQODZIXO LQMXU\ GRHV QRW OHVVHQ WKH LQMXU\ ,Q DQ\ HYHQW WKHUH LV QR JXDUDQWHH WKDW Plaintiff’s family will receive a waiver, and the Government has given no indication that it will SURYLGH RQH

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 39 of 40

)RU WKH VDPH UHDVRQV WKH EDODQFH RI HTXLWLHV VWURQJO\ IDYRUV WKH HQWU\ RI LPPHGLDWH UHOLHI

,W LV QRW K\SHUEROH WR VD\ WKDW VXFK UHOLHI LV D PDWWHU RI OLIH DQG GHDWK %\ FRQWUDVW 'HIHQGDQWV

KDYH QR FRJQL]DEOH LQWHUHVW LQ FRQWLQXLQJ WR LPSOHPHQW DQ ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU WKDW YLRODWHV IHGHUDO

ODZ DQG WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ 6HH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV Y 8 6 &RLQ &XUUHQF\ 8 6

.+ 2XWGRRU //& Y &LW\ RI 7UXVVYLOOH ) G

WK &LU

1RU GRHV

Defendants’ pretextual “national security” interest outweigh Plaintiff’s interests, given the

Executive Order’s failure to advance that purported interest in a tailored way. 6HH VXSUD DW –

7UXPS ) G DW

ILQGLQJ QR KDUP WR *RYHUQPHQW IURP VWD\ RI ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU

because there is “no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has

perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States”).

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 30 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 40 of 40

&21&/86,21 3ODLQWLII UHVSHFWIXOO\ DVNV WKLV &RXUW WR HQWHU D WHPSRUDU\ UHVWUDLQLQJ RUGHU DQG D SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLRQ SURKLELWLQJ HQIRUFHPHQW RI WKH ([HFXWLYH 2UGHU DJDLQVW 3ODLQWLII DQG UHTXLULQJ Defendants to finish processing Plaintiff’s derivative asylum petition.

'DWHG 1HZ <RUN 1HZ <RUN 0DUFK

5HVSHFWIXOO\ VXEPLWWHG

%\

V 9LQFHQW /HY\

+2/:(// 6+867(5 *2/'%(5* //3

9LQFHQW /HY\ YOHY\#KVJOOS FRP

$QGUHL 9UDELH DYUDELH#KVJOOS FRP

$QGUHZ %UHLGHQEDFK DEUHLGHQEDFK#KVJOOS FRP

0DWWKHZ 9 + 1ROOHU PQROOHU#KVJOOS FRP

/DXUHQ *LXGLFH OJLXGLFH#KVJOOS FRP

6DUDK 6WHUQOLHE VVWHUQOLHE#KVJOOS FRP

.HYLQ %HQLVK NEHQLVK#KVJOOS FRP ODZ FOHUN

1HZ <RUN 6WDWH %DU DGPLVVLRQ SHQGLQJ

6HYHQWK $YHQXH WK )ORRU

1HZ <RUN 1<

3,1(6 %$&+ //3 /HVWHU $ 3LQHV 6%1 7DPDUD % 3DFNDUG 6%1 $OLVRQ 7HQ%UXJJHQFDWH 6%1
:HVW :DVKLQJWRQ $YH 6WH 0DGLVRQ :,
WHOHSKRQH IDFVLPLOH OSLQHV#SLQHVEDFK FRP WSDFNDUG#SLQHVEDFK FRP DWHQEUXJJHQFDWH#SLQHVEDFK FRP
$WWRUQH\V IRU 3ODLQWLII

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112 Chief Judge William M. Conley

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF PROPOSED RECORD FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Pursuant to the Court’s Procedure to Be Followed on Motions for Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits the following Statement of Proposed Record Facts:
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under Article II of the United States Constitution, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1182(f), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 9
2. Plaintiff’s action for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district. See Declaration of John Doe in Support of His Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Doe Decl.”) ¶¶ 21–22.
Parties 4. Plaintiff John Doe, who resides in the Western District of Wisconsin, is a Sunni Muslim asylee who was granted asylum status in May 2016. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 2, 20–21. 5. Defendant Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. President Trump signed both executive orders that are the subject of this action. He is sued in his official capacity. 6. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Kelly is responsible for implementing the INA and the Executive Order that is the subject of this action. He is sued in his official capacity. 7. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department within the U.S. federal government. Its functions include regulating entry into the United States and granting asylees prior approval to travel internationally. It is also responsible for implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8. Defendant Lori Scialabba is the Acting Director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. She is sued in her official capacity.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 9
9. Defendant U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is an agency within DHS whose primary functions include adjudication of asylum and derivative asylum claims.
10. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the U.S. Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has authority to determine and implement certain asylum procedures for non-citizens. Defendant Tillerson is sued in his official capacity.
11. Defendant U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) is responsible for, inter alia, facilitating issuance of visas for asylees and derivative asylees seeking entry into the United States.
Plaintiff’s Derivative Asylum Petition 12. Plaintiff legally resides in the United States, having been granted asylum status by USCIS in 2016. See Doe Decl. ¶¶ 13–15, 20–21. 13. Shortly after receiving asylum status, Plaintiff filed two Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (also known as derivative asylum petitions) with USCIS on Form I-730 for his wife and three-year-old daughter. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 21–22. 14. USCIS was duly processing Plaintiff’s Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions until President Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” dated January 27, 2017. Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 23 at 5–6. 15. In filings with this Court, the Government confirmed that provisions of the first executive order barred the processing of derivative asylum petitions. Dkt. No. 23 at 6 (“Following the signing of the Executive Order of January 27, 2017, Defendants endeavored to comply with the mandate . . . .”).
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 9
16. The Government further represented that, after the TRO was entered in Washington v. Trump, No. C17-014JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017), USCIS “resumed” processing derivative asylum petitions. Dkt. No. 23 at 6 (“[P]rocessing of Form I730 derivative asylum petitions—such as Plaintiff’s—resumed when the injunction was issued.” (emphasis added)).
17. USCIS has approved both of his petitions and is in the process of transferring them to the National Visa Center for routing to the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan. See Second Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Second Breidenbach Decl.”) Ex. UU.
18. That stage is the final portion of the derivative asylum process; but for the Executive Order (described below), the U.S. Embassy would interview Plaintiff’s wife and child upon receipt of the completed petitions, and, if approved, the Government would issue travel documents permitting them to enter the United States. Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. TT.
19. The Government represented that the remaining portion of the review would require between one and four additional months to complete. Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. UU.
20. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued an updated Executive Order, No. 13780, also titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. FF.
21. The new Executive Order replaces the original executive order and will take effect on March 16, 2017. Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. FF §§ 1(i), 14.
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 9
22. As indicated by numerous statements made by President Trump and his advisors, the new Executive Order reflects the same purpose as the original January order: to ban entry by Muslims into the United States. Second Breidenbach Decl. ¶¶ 6, 13–14.
23. The Executive Order contains the same provisions that the Government previously interpreted to require it to stop processing derivative asylum petitions. Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. FF.
24. On its face and as interpreted by the Government, the new Executive Order harms Plaintiff by prohibiting the issuance of travel documents that Plaintiff’s wife and daughter would need to be reunited with Plaintiff in the United States and by prohibiting them from entering the United States. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 25–26; Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. RR.
25. On March 6, 2017, the day the new Executive Order was signed, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted counsel for Defendants to inquire as to the effect of the new order on Plaintiff’s pending petitions. Plaintiff’s counsel requested an answer to the following questions by Wednesday, March 8 and advised that Plaintiff would take the Government’s non-response as an indication that the Executive Order impacts his petitions:
x Please state whether the Government will continue to process derivative asylum petitions for beneficiaries residing in Syria once the new Executive Order takes effect.
x Please state whether the new Executive Order applies to the pending derivative petitions or otherwise affects our client’s wife’s and daughter’s ability to enter the United States in any manner, including but not limited to, by delaying or barring the Government from processing the applications or delaying or barring the Department of State from interviewing or issuing travel documents to our client’s wife and daughter;
x If the new Executive Order does affect the pending derivative applications or otherwise affects our client’s wife’s and daughter’s ability to enter the United States in any manner, please identify which provisions of the Executive Order does so; and
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 9
x If the new Executive Order does not apply to or otherwise affect our client’s wife’s and daughter’s ability to enter the United States in any manner, please identify the provisions of the Executive Order that make this clear.
Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. UU. 26. Despite three follow-up emails, three unanswered calls, and three voicemail
messages, the Government has not responded substantively to these questions as of this filing, other than to ask whether Plaintiff’s wife and child are currently in Syria or Lebanon. Second Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 19 & Ex. UU.
27. The text of the Executive Order confirms that, once it becomes effective, it will bar the processing of Plaintiff’s derivative petitions and/or the entry of Plaintiff’s wife and child into the United States: (A) Under Section 2(c) of the Executive Order, Plaintiff’s wife and daughter, as Syrian nationals, are barred from entry for a minimum of 90 days (starting on the Order’s effective date). (B) Section 3(a) also makes clear that Plaintiff’s wife and daughter are subject to the ban on entry because they (i) will be outside the United States on March 16, 2017; (ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and (iii) will not have a valid visa on March 16, 2017.
28. It will take at least 30 days from February 24 for Plaintiff’s petitions to arrive in Jordan, which means that Plaintiff’s wife and child will not have a visa by March 16, 2017. Second Breidenbach Decl. Ex. UU.
29. Plaintiff’s wife and daughter do not fall under any of the exceptions in Section 3(b) of the Executive Order, because they will not, as of March 16, be: (i) lawful permanent residents of the United States; (ii) admitted to or paroled into the United States; (iii) in possession of travel documents other than a visa that permits them to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document; (iv) dual nationals of a nondesignated country; (v) in possession of diplomatic or diplomatic-type visas, North Atlantic
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 9
Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or (vi) asylees, refugees admitted to the United States, or individuals who have been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Doe Decl. ¶ 26.
30. The discretionary waiver provisions under Section 3(c) of the Executive Order also do not help Plaintiff’s wife and daughter because they must “demonstrate[] to [a Government] officer’s satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that [their] entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest.” Moreover, the case-by-case waiver procedure will, as a practical matter, increase the amount of time for completion of the visa process, needlessly depriving Plaintiff of a reunion with his wife and daughter.
31. By the Government’s own concessions in its February 16 response, Plaintiff’s wife and daughter are not refugees, so they are ineligible for a waiver under Section 6(c) of the Executive Order. Dkt. No. 23.
32. Guidance issued by DHS in connection with the release of the new Executive Order indicates that Plaintiff’s petitions will be harmed:
Can the exception for refugee admission be used for Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (Form I-730) cases where a family member is requesting a beneficiary follow to join? No. Individuals who already have valid visas or travel documents that permit them to travel to the United States are exempt from the Executive Order. To the extent that an individual does not yet have such documents, please contact the Department of State. Second Breidenbach Decl. ¶ 15. 33. The new Executive Order irreparably harms Plaintiff because it separates Plaintiff from his spouse and surviving child. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 4–7, 12, 14–19, 24–26.
7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 9
34. The new Executive Order subjects Plaintiff’s wife and daughter to further suffering due to a current lack of adequate medical and humanitarian services in Aleppo and to an imminent risk of rape and death. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 4–7, 12, 14–19, 24, 28–29.
35. Plaintiff’s wife and daughter cannot leave Syria until they are officially invited for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, because only then will border authorities permit them to cross into Jordan. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 25–27.
36. Plaintiff’s wife and daughter remain in hiding in Aleppo, where deadly fighting continues unabated. Doe Decl. ¶¶ 24, 28.
37. In late February, for example, Free Syrian Army forces bombed the neighborhood where Plaintiff’s wife and daughter live. Doe Decl. ¶ 28. In July 2015, Plaintiff’s two year old son fell three stories to his death while attempting to seek shelter during an artillery attack on their home. Doe Decl. ¶ 19.
38. Since February 24, Plaintiff has finalized arrangements for the (very dangerous) transport of Plaintiff’s wife and daughter to Jordan, so that they may make the necessary trip once invited by the U.S. Embassy in Jordan. Doe Decl. ¶ 27.
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 31 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 9

Dated: New York, New York March 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Vincent Levy HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP Vincent Levy (vlevy@hsgllp.com) Lauren Giudice (lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp.com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp.com) Matthew V.H. Noller (mnoller@hsgllp.com) Sarah Sternlieb (ssternlieb@hsgllp.com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp.com) (law clerk – New York State Bar admission pending) 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151
PINES BACH LLP Lester A. Pines, SBN 1016543 Tamara B. Packard, SBN 1023111 Alison TenBruggencate, SBN 1018869 122 West Washington Ave., Ste. 900 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 251-0101 (telephone) (608) 251-2883 (facsimile) lpines@pinesbach.com tpackard@pinesbach.com atenbruggencate@pinesbach.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

9

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 23
(;+,%,7 ))

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 11 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 12 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 13 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 14 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 15 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 16 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 17 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 18 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 19 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 20 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 21 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 22 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-1 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 23 of 23

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-2 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2
(;+,%,7**

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-2 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-3 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 6
(;+,%,7++

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-3 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-3 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-3 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-3 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-3 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 11
(;+,%,7,,

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-4 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 11 of 11

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-5 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 4
(;+,%,7--

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-5 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-5 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-5 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 10
(;+,%,7..

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 10

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-7 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 4
(;+,%,7//

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-7 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-7 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-7 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-8 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 5
(;+,%,700

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-8 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-8 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 5
F5DD9>7@B?354EB5C9>@1BD93E<1B1B5>?DD81DEC56E<9>C3B55>9>7?ED@5?@<5G8?
 
1>4D81D=?CD6?B597>2?B> 5=97B1>DCD?D85,>9D54*D1D5CG8?253?=5F9?<5>D5HDB5=9CDC61<<9>D?D81D31D57?BI
M+85>1D9?>1<C53EB9DI:ECD96931D9?>6?BD89CG8?<521>LD89CC5DD9>7E@?65HDB5=5F5DD9>7L9C2E<<@E3;I
N%144?GC194 M+85B5OC>?D89>7D85I31>C5DE@1DD852?B45BD?D5<<I?EI51BC4?G>D85B?14G8?=978D253?=5K1B14931<1>4F9?<5>D@5BC?> I51BC6B?=>?GN
+89C3?=@<5=5>DCD853?>3<EC9?>?6D85?D85B<51;54=5=?+1;5>D?75D85B
D85I1@@51BD?=51>D81D *OC1>1<ICDC25<95F5 D81DC9>7<9>7?EDD8?C53?E>DB95C=1;5C<9DD<5C5>C5
D81DD85@B?2<5=9>@B5F5>D9>7D5BB?B9C=2I9==97B1>DC4?5C>?D<959> ?EBF5DD9>7@B?354EB5C1CD85I1B5
G89381<B514IC3B55>?EDD859==5491D5D8B51DC
&?G
1>9=@?BD1>D31F51D9C>535CC1BI85B5L?>5D81DC854C=?B5<978D?>D85+BE=@14=9>9CDB1D9?>OC13DE1<B1D9?>1<56?BD85 21>
G89389C3BI9>7?ED6?B=?B54521D5+8521>OC=19>1B389D53DCL*D5@85>#1>>?>1>4*D5@85>%9<<5BLG?E<4 @B?212<I1B7E5D81DD85C5>5G4?3E=5>DC4?>ODE>45B3EDD859B<1B75B1B7E=5>DC6?B9D
C!81F5B5@?BD54
D855F945>359C=?E>D9>7D81D1>>?>1>4%9<<5BF95GD8521>1C@1BD?61=E382B?145B
<?>7D5B= 45=?7B1@893B5C81@9>7@B?:53D%9<<5B<5DC<9@9>1B535>D9>D5BF95GD81DD8521>9C>OD:ECD12?ED>1D9?>1<C53EB9DI
2ED1<C? 12?ED@B?D53D9>7,*G?B;5BC6B?=6?B597>3?=@5D9D9?>>4D85$?C>75<5C+9=5CB5@?BDCD81D1>>?>1>4%9<<5B81F5 @B9F1D5<I1B7E54D81DD8521>9C9>;55@9>7G9D8D85>554D?3?=21D9==97B1D9?>2I@5?@<5G8?MG9<<>?D1CC9=9<1D5N
!>C945D85-5CD-9>7
D85DG?=5>81F5@EC8541>?=9>?ECF95G?6B56E7551>49==97B1D9?>6<?GC
D5<<9>7 ?D85B@?<93I=1;5BCD81D96<1B75>E=25BC?6%EC<9=C1B51<<?G54D?5>D5BD85,*
@1BDC?6=5B931>39D95C G9<<2579>D?B5@<931D5=1B79>1<9J549==97B1>D>59782?B8??4C9>B1>35
5B=1>I1>45<79E=D81D81F5 255>8?=5D?@<?DD5BC?6D5BB?B9CD1DD13;C9>B535>DI51BC
133?B49>7D?1-89D5 ?EC5194561=9<91BG9D8D85 49C3ECC9?>C
+8EC
D8521>9C?61@9535G9D8D85<?>7D5B=7?1<C?6@B?D53D9>7=5B931>G?B;5BC6B?=53?>?=933?=@5D9D9?>1>4@B5F5>D9>7 EB?@51>CDI<59==97B1>D3?==E>9D95CG89389>3E21D5D5BB?B@<?DD5BC6B?=45F5<?@9>785B51>>?>1>4%9<<5B3?E<41B7E5 D81DD85C51B7E=5>DC1B5@1BD<I12?ED>1D9?>1<C53EB9DI
D??EDD89C9C131C5D81D35>D5BC?>
 +81D 4?5C>?DCE@@?BDD8514=9>9CDB1D9?>OC31C56?BD859==5491D521>
C9>35 *81C3?>3<E454D81DM5HDB5=5F5DD9>7N31>ODC3B55> ?EDD85D8B51D?6B14931<9J1D9?><1D5B!61>ID89>7
D8?C5<1B75B=?D9F5CE>45B=9>5D8531C56?BD8521>
2ID8B?G9>79DCCD1D54 C8?BDD5B==?D9F59>D?4?E2D
!DOCD9=56?BD85+BE=@14=9>9CDB1D9?>D?;9<<D8521>LD8531C56?B9D9C3?<<1@C9>7L1>46?BD8B978D<I4521D5D89C<1B75B 1B7E=5>D
#&&5GCB5@?BDCD81D9>D85G1;5?6"566*5CC9?>COCB53EC1<
D85@B?25G9<< >?G25?F5BC55>2I3D9>75@EDIDD?B>5I5>5B1<1>1?5>D5?BD85@5B=1>5>D?>5
)?4)?C5>CD59>
963?>69B=54-81D

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-8 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 5
12?ED1C@5391<3?E>C5<
+85,*?45C5DC?EDC@5396933B9D5B91D?:ECD96I1@@?9>D9>71C@5391<3?E>C5<9BCDD851DD?B>5I75>5B1<?B 89C?B85B@B?HI=ECD45D5B=9>5D81D13B9=9>1<9>F5CD971D9?>9CG1BB1>D54K*53?>4
D851DD?B>5I75>5B1< ?B89C?B85B@B?HI=ECD45D5B=9>5D81D9DG?E<42513?>6<93D?69>D5B5CD6?BD8545@1BD=5>D?B1,* 1DD?B>5IOC?66935D?3?>4E3DD859>F5CD971D9?>?D845D5B=9>1D9?>CG9<<>?G25E@D??5>D5?B /)?C5>CD59>0
-8?D89>;C59D85B?6D8?C5D89>7C9C<9;5<ID?81@@5>1>ID9=5C??>
 
 
  %51>G89<5
1B< E<C5B5@?BDCD81D)5@E2<931>C1B5>OD 7?9>7D?CE@@?BD1C5B9?EC
9>45@5>45>D@B?251>ID9=5C??>
?EC51>4*5>1D5)5@E2<931>CB5=19>E>G9<<9>7D?2E4756B?=D859B?@@?C9D9?>D?1C@5391<29@1BD9C1> 9>AE9BI9>D?D855HD5>D?6)ECC91>=544<9>79>D855<53D9?>
1>49>D?1>I3?>>53D9?>CD?(B5C945>D +BE=@?BD8?C53<?C5D?89=81>79>7D859B=9>4G?E<4@B?212<IB5AE9B5C97>96931>DB5F5<1D9?>C?6D85C?BD D81DG?E<4=1;5D859B3EBB5>DCD1>35@?<9D931<<IE>D5>12<5
B?49>7D85@B?D53D9F5G1<<D81D)5@E2<931>C81F52E9<D1B?E>4+BE=@9C7?9>7D?25496693E<D
2ED9D9C>?D9=@?CC92<5
 @1BD93E<1B<I96CE38B5F5<1D9?>C1B59>D85?669>7
"# 
?>C5BF1D9F5C9>C9CDD85IG9<<?><ICE@@?BD 3<51>B5@51<
2ED(?<9D93?B5@?BDCD81D'(<5145BC1B5C5DD?6?B35D8B?E781B5@51<1>4B5@<13529<<D81D4?5CC@5>4C?=5 =?>5ID?3?F5BC?=5@5?@<5
(B9F1D5<I
C5>9?B)5@E2<931><1G=1;5BCKC1ID85I81F5>?@B?2<5=CD51=B?<<9>73?>C5BF1D9F5C2I41B9>7 D85=D?F?D51719>CD1>'21=131B5B5@51<D81DD859B3?>CD9DE5>DC81F545=1>4546?BI51BCM?>C5BF1D9F5C 1B57?9>7D?259>12?H
NC194?>5C5>9?B)5@E2<931><1G=1;5B+BE=@
D85C?EB35@B5493D54
5F5>DE1<<IG9<< M7??ED6B?>D1>4KD5<<D853?>C5BF1D9F5CKD85IOB559D85B6?BD89C?B6?B;55@9>7'21=131B5N
!DG9<<259>D5B5CD9>7D?C55G85D85B3?>C5BF1D9F5C453945D?D1;5?>+BE=@
1>4B5<1D54D?D81D
G85D85BD85B5G9<<251>I C5B9?EC3<1=?B1=?>73?>C5BF1D9F5F?D5BC6?BD?D1<B5@51<
+85&5G.?B;+9=5CB5@?BDCD81D1C@<9D81C5=5B754?F5BG85D85BD? @E<<D85,>9D54*D1D5C?ED?6D857<?21<3<9=1D5133?B4
25DG55>*D5@85>#1>>?>6?B@E<<9>7?ED
1>4*53B5D1BI?6*D1D5)5H +9<<5BC?>1>4!F1>;1+BE=@1719>CD9D
'>?>5C945?6D81D4521D59C%B1>>?>
G8?1C16?B=5B389565H53ED9F5?6B59D21BD&5GC@E2<9C854 3?E>D<5CC1BD93<5C45>?E>39>73<9=1D5381>751C18?1HK'>D85?D85BC9451B5%C+BE=@
%B+9<<5BC?>
 1>41C<5G?66?B597>@?<93I14F9C5BC1>431B55B49@<?=1DCG8?1B7E5D81DD8561<<?ED?6G9D84B1G9>76B?=

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-8 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 5
D85133?B43?E<425C5F5B5
E>45B3EDD9>7D85,>9D54*D1D5CO3B54929<9DI?>?D85B6?B597>@?<93I9CCE5C1>4 41=179>7B5<1D9?>CG9D8;5I1<<95C
+81DC55=C<9;51>5F5><I=1D3854C5D?61B7E=5>DC

)5ED5BC45<9F5BCC?=59=@?BD1>DB5@?BD9>7
(1B5>DCG8?9==97B1D549<<571<<ID?D85,>9D54*D1D5C1>4>?G651B45@?BD1D9?>E>45BD85+BE=@ 14=9>9CDB1D9?>1B59>E>41D9>79==97B1D9?>14F?31D5CG9D8B5AE5CDC6?B85<@9>C53EB9>731B56?BD859B 389<4B5>9>D855F5>DD85I1B55H@5<<546B?=D853?E>DBIK2?ED69F5=9<<9?>389<4B5>E>45BD85175?6 1B5<9F9>7G9D81D<51CD?>5@1B5>DG8?9C9>D853?E>DBI9<<571<<I
133?B49>7D?1CDE4IK%?CD?6D85 389<4B5>
@5B35>D
G5B5,*39D9J5>C
D85CDE4I6?E>4
)5=5=25B
?>5?6D857?1<C?65H@1>49>7D85@??<?6@5?@<5CE2:53DD?45@?BD1D9?>9CD?6B978D5>D85=9>D?C5<645@?BD9>7 $??;C<9;5D85566?BDD?C@B514B1G651B9C81F9>7C?=5CE335CC
!

&()B5@?BDCD81D+BE=@OC@B5C945>3I9CC@1B;9>7 1>E@CEB759>@?<9D931<13D9F9DI?>2?D8C945C
2ED=?B5C??>D85<56D&?D5D89C
6B?=1>19C85B
1,>9F5BC9DI?6%1BI<1>4 C?39?<?79CDG8?CDE495C@B?D5CDC
9C85BCEBF5I54=?B5D81>@1BD939@1>DC9>D85-?=5>OC%1B38?>-1C89>7D?>D8541I16D5B+BE=@OC 9>1E7EB1D9?>D89B4>5F5B814@B?D5CD54256?B5
+89C
@<ECCECD19>545>7175=5>D6B?=39F9<C?395DI
G9<<253BE391<D?1>I8?@5C?6<9=9D9>7D8541=175+BE=@31>4?
 
# (1E<#BE7=1>>?D5CD81D+BE=@9C61B1>4 1G1ID85=?CD49C8?>5CD@?<9D9391>9>B535>D=5=?BI
1>4144C
+85=?B1<F13E9DI?6)5@E2<931>C9>?>7B5CC
1>4D85E><9;5<98??4D81DD85IO<<13D1C1>I3853;?>D85 @B5C945>D
253?=5C3<51B5BG9D85138@1CC9>741IK%51>G89<5
)5@E2<931>@B9=1BI5<53D9?>F?D5BC
G8? 1B5D85B51<1B29D5BCG85>@?<1B9J541>4?B75BBI=1>45B5449CDB93DC=1;5D8575>5B1<5<53D9?>9BB5<5F1>D 6?B=1>I@?<9D9391>C
<9F59>1?H&5GC2E22<59>D?G89381G;G1B4DBED8C>5F5B@5>5DB1D5
!>4554
1B535>D@?<<6?E>4D81D@5B35>D?6)5@E2<931>B5C@?>45>DCDBECD+BE=@
B1D85BD81>D85>5GC=5491
D?D5<<D85= D85DBED8
453B51C9>7D85@B5CCEB5?>'(<1G=1;5BCD?B5C@?>49>1B51<9DI21C54G1ID?>5GB5F5<1D9?>C12?ED89= 1@@I B941I

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-9 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 6
(;+,%,711

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-9 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-9 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-9 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 6
!8+:3>96366"<3-/3==//8,C=97/#/:?,63-+8=+=79</589A6/.1/+,6/+,9?>2/+6>2 -+</:963-C>2+8?6@+8/C13@/823= /B:/<3/8-/+=+:2C=3-3+8+8.23=>37/+=-2+3<7+890>2/9?=/?.1/>9773>>//
?>?6@+8/C,/8/03>=0<97>2/-69=/ </6+>398=23:=2/2+=09<1/.A3>2%<?7:H=>9:+.@3=/<=+8.A3>2>2/9?=/H=-98=/<@+>3@/A381

%<?7:7/+8A236/2+=,//80//6381,/=3/1/.,/63/@381>2+>23=:</=3./8-C3=,/381>9<7/8>/.38A+C=589A8+8.?8589A8,C +1<9?:90!,+7+ +6318/.-<3>3-=0/./<+6,?</+?-<+>=+8.38>/6631/8-/031?</=E89>>97/8>398>2/7/.3+A23-22/2+=-+66/. F>2//8/7C90>2/7/<3-+8:/9:6/
G
%2+>+81=>9@/<A2+>7+8C38>2/(23>/9?=/-+66>2/F.//:=>+>/G3=097/8>381.+36C0?/6/.,C<?79<=+8.>3.,3>=:3-5/.?: ,C%<?7:+663/=A3>238>2/38>/6631/8-/-977?83>C+8.,C?8-9803<7/.+66/1+>398=>2+>2+@/,//87+./,C<312> A381 -977/8>+>9<=
%2/F.//:=>+>/G3=+:2<+=/:9:?6+<98>2/<312>09<./=-<3,381/8></8-2/.8/>A9<5=29=>36/>9%<?7:

#/:
+8+#92<+,+-2/<# +630
+8+.@9-+>/9037:<9@/.</6+>398=,/>A//8>2/&83>/.$>+>/=+8.#?==3+=+3.2/2+=>96. 0<3/8.=38>2/+.7383=><+>398>2+>%<?7:3=,/381:?83=2/.09<-6+=2381A3>2>2/2+A53=2+::<9+-2>9A+<.#?==3+>2+>3==2+</. ,C79=>/79-<+>=+8.#/:?,63-+8=

F#/7/7,/<A2+>A312>3=/829A/<>96.?=%2/</3=+7363>+<C 38.?=><3+6-97:6/B
%2+>-97:6/B=>366/B3=>=+8.2+=+69>90 :9A/<G2/=+3.
F>H=/@/<CA2/</+8.3>.9/=8H>635/29A%<?7:3=2+8.6381#?==3+
!@/<+8.9@/<+1+3838+<>3-6/+0>/<+<>3-6/ 3></+<=3>=2/+.
G
%2/:</=3./8>2+=,//8=//>2381+=2/A+>-2/=<9?8. >2/ -69-5-+,6/8/A=-9@/<+1/
%<?7:</-/8>6C@/8>/.>9+8+==9-3+>/ >2+>+<>/<"+1/+98/>37/%<?7:-+7:+318+.@3=/<5//:=+::/+<38198>/6/@3=398/@/8>29?122/+8.%<?7:2+@/89 =318303-+8></6+>398=23:

$>9<3/=0<97</3>,+<> /A=>2/38-/8.3+<C-98=/<@+>3@/A/,=3>/2+@/,//8-3<-?6+>/.+>>2/(23>/9?=/H=2312/=>6/@/6=38 </-/8>.+C=38-6?.38198/=>9<CA2/</>+65 <+.3929=>+<5/@38+--?=/.>2/!,+7++.7383=><+>3989079?8>381+F=36/8> -9?:G+--9<.381>9=/@/<+69003-3+6=

$>/:2/8
+8898>2/(23>/9?=/-23/0=><+>/13=>A2998-/<+8</3>,+<>2+==:95/8A3>2%<?7:+>6/81>2+,9?>23=@3/A >2+>>2/F.//:=>+>/G3=+.3</->>2</+>>923=:</=3./8-C

.@3=/<=:938>/.>9+8898H=0</;?/8>-69=/. .99<1?3.+8-/98>2/>9:3-+8.%<?7:H=+1<//7/8>+=+0?8.+7/8>+6A+C90 ?8./<=>+8.381>2/:</=3./8>H=,/2+@39<+8.23=A3663818/==>9-980<98>>2/38>/6631/8-/-977?83>CE+8.=+3.>2+>A2/8 +8898=:95/</-/8>6C+,9?>>2/F./-98=><?->39890>2/+.7383=><+>3@/=>+>/G2/A+=+6=9+66?.381>923=+3790<?:>?<381>2/ 38>/6631/8-/-977?83>C+8.3>=3806?/8-/98>2/&
$
8+>398+6=/-?<3>C+8.0 9</318:963-C-98=/8=?=

+8898H=@3/A3==2+</.,C=97/>9:#/:?,63-+8=

F>H=89>:+<+893++>+66A2/83>H=+->?+66C2+::/8381
>H=6/+5+0>/<6/+5+0>/<6/+50<97>2/,?</+?-<+>=38>2/)38>/6631/8-/ -977?83>C*+8.09<7/<!,+7++.7383=><+>3989003-3+6=E+8.3>H=@/<C</+6G=+3.#/:
/@38 ?8/=# +630
>2/-2+3<7+890

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-9 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 6
>2/9?=/8>/6631/8-/9773>>//
F%2/(23>/9?=/3=+,=96?>/6C-98-/<8/.+8.3=><C381>9031?</9?>+=C=>/73-A+C>9 +..</==A2+>H=2+::/8381
G
%2/799.+>>2/(23>/9?=/98%?/=.+C8312>A+=.300/</8>+6>91/>2/<E4?,36+8>
%<?7:</>?<8/.0<97>2/+:3>96=29<>6C ,/09</73.8312>>9038.23==>+00+==/7,6/.38>2/</=3./8-/-2//<381237
38+66C>2/C+66>29?12>>2/C2+.=/3D/.-98><96
%2/ :</=3./8>2+./@/86+3.900%A3>>/<9?>,?<=>=E+=7+66@3->9<C09<+=>+0090>/8?8+,6/>9.<3@/+.3=-3:638/.7/==+1/

F/8+36/.3>+8.2/58/A3>G=+3./66C+88/98A+C-9?8=/69<>9>2/:</=3./8>

%2/7/<<37/8>-+7/>9+=?../8/8.98(/.8/=.+C8312>A2/8%2/(+=2381>98"9=>03<=></:9<>/.>2+>>>9<8/C/8/<+6 /00$/==398=7/>A3>2>2/#?==3+8+7,+==+.9<./=:3>/2+@381=+3.?8./<9+>2+>23=$/8+>/-9803<7+>3982/+<381>2+>2/2+. 89-98>+->A3>2>2/#?==3+8=

8=3./>2/(/=>(381%<?7:H=>9:+3./=A/</0?<39?=A3>2>2/./0/8=/=90$/==398=900/</.,C>2/?=>3-//:+<>7/8>H=:?,63+00+3<=.3@3=398+8.0/6>,638.=3./.>2+>$/==398=H=+3./=2+.89>-98=?6>/.>2/(23>/9?=//+<63/<38>2/:<9-/==+--9<.381>9 98/=/839<(23>/9?=/9003-3+6

%2/8/B>79<8381%<?7:/B:69./.+--9<.381>9(23>/9?=/9003-3+6=
/2/+./.>9 /A:9<> /A='+
98%2?<=.+C09<+ =:6+=2C-977+8./< 38 -23/0797/8>
%2/:</=3./8>A9?6.><?7:/>23=:6+8>91<9A7363>+<C=:/8.381+,9+<.>2/ +@CH= =9:23=>3-+>/.8/A+3<-<+0>-+<<3/<
?>+=%<?7:=:9<>381+,97,/<4+-5/>+8. +@C-+:<+663/.=+369<=+8.=23:,?36./<=23= 7/==+1/A+=9@/<=2+.9A/.,C$/==398=

%2/8+0/A29?<=+0>/<%<?7:2+.:?,63-6C./0/8./.23=+>>9<8/C1/8/<+6+8.=+3.2/=29?6.89></-?=/237=/600<97>2/ #?==3+:<9,/$/==398=-+66/.+8/A=-980/</8-/>9+889?8-/4?=>>2+>E+79?8>381>9+:?,63-</,?5/90>2/:</=3./8>

+-5+>>2/(23>/9?=/98<3.+C79<8381%<?7:=?7798/.23==/839<+3./=38>9>2/!@+6!003-/A2/</2/=377/</.A3>2 <+1/+--9<.381>9=/@/<+6(23>/9?=/9003-3+6=
/?:,<+3./.>2/79@/<$/==398=H=./-3=398>9</-?=/237=/60,/63/@381>2+> $/==398=2+.=?--?7,/.>9:</==?</0<97>2/7/.3++8.9>2/<-<3>3-=38=>/+.900312>381A3>2>2/0?66./0/8=/=90>2/(23>/ 9?=/

8+2?00%<?7:./:+<>/.09<+< + +19>+5381A3>22370<9723=388/<-3<-6/986C23=.+?12>/<+8.?=28/<A293=+(23>/ 9?=/=/839<+.@3=/<
3=>9:>A9+3./=23/090$>+00# /38-/"<3/,?=+8.+8898=>+C/.,/238.38(+=2381>98

=</:9<>/<=,/1+8>92/+<+,9?>>2/!@+6!003-/7//>381"<3/,?=38>/<<?:>/.23=<3.+C+0>/<8998=-2/.?6/>9./.3-+>/79</ >2+8+829?<>9-+66381</:9<>/<=900>2/</-9<.>9./8C>2+>>2/9?>,?<=>2+.+->?+66C2+::/8/.+--9<.381>9+=/839<(23>/ 9?=/9003-3+6

F@/<C>37/>2/</H=+:+6+-/38><31?/=>9<C9<8/1+>3@/=>9<C+,9?>#/38-/>2/A296/(/=>(381=2?>=.9A8G>2/9003-3+6=+3.


Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-9 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 6
&6>37+>/6C"<3/,?=A+=?8+,6/>95366>2/=>9<C
/=37:6C./6+C/.>2/,+.8/A=+=</:9<>=90%<?7:.</==381.9A823==>+00 A/</:?,63=2/.,C8?7/<9?=9?>6/>=$+>?<.+C

%<9?,6/09<%<?7:-98>38?/.>9=:3<+69@/<>2/A//5/8.
+<6C$+>?<.+C2/=?<:<3=/.23==>+00,C03<38190009?<>A//>= +--?=381!,+7+90+F 3B98(+>/<1+>/G:69>>9>+:23=%<?7:%9A/<:298/=38>2/<?8 ?:>96+=>0+66H=/6/->398
%<?7:-3>/. 89/@3./8-/+8.!,+7+H==:95/=7+8./83/.+8C=?-2A3</>+:A+=9<./</.

%2+>8312>+>+< + +19%<?7:2+..388/<A3>2$/==398=+889897/6+8.$/-?<3>C$/-</>+<C928
/66C+8.(23>/ 9?=/=/839<:963-C+.@3=/<$>/:2/8366/<+79819>2/<=
%2/C><3/.>9:?>%<?7:38+,/>>/<799.,C193819@/<>2/3< 37:6/7/8>+>398:6+8=09<>2/><+@/6,+8+--9<.381>9+(23>/9?=/9003-3+6



   0$ *(-&-$51 !.32+." +&.4$0-,$-2(-# 

!

%<?7:A+=,<312>/<$?8.+C79<8381+=2/</+.=/@/<+68/A=:+:/<=:6/+=/.>2+>23=+66/1+>398=+1+38=>!,+7+A/</>2/ .9738+8>=>9<C>2/9003-3+6=+3.


?>2/09?8.</+=98>9,/7+.+1+38/A#/:?,63-+8=A/</./0/8.38123798>2/$?8.+C:963>3-+6>+65=29A=
$97/%<?7: +.@3=/<=+8.+663/=A/<//=:/-3+66C.3=+::938>/.38$/8
+<-9#?,396+
A29>A9.+C=/+<63/<2+.23>-2/.+<3./.9A8>9 69<3.+A3>2%<?7:983<9<-/!8/


"</==/.,C H=2?-5%9..>9/B:6+38%<?7:H=A3</>+::381-6+37#?,39./7?<</.


F995.3.8H>7+5/>2/+66/1+>398G2/=+3.
FH789>>2/:/<=98>2+>A/8>9?>>2/</+8.=+3.3>
G

    


'(+(/3"*$0(12'$'(2$.31$30$ 3'($%%.0'$ 1'(-&2.-.12$/0$4(.31+6' 1".4$0$#.-&0$112'$ ! , '(2$.31$ -#2'$
 
 -#
 /0$1(#$-2( +" ,/ (&-1$).(-$#'$.12(-
 1 +." +-$51 0$/.02$0.++.5'(+(/3"*$0 .!$02.12 (1 - 2(.- +/.+(2(" +0$/.02$0 2'$ 1'(-&2.-.12.++.5".12 0$/.021 1'+$6 0*$0(1 '(2$.31$0$/.02$0%.0'$ 1'(-&2.-.12'$).(-$#'$.12(-
  %2$0 6$ 01 2'$ $5.0*(,$15'$0$1'$".4$0$#2'$
 
 -#
 /0$1(#$-2( +" ,/ (&-1 -#.-&0$11 ,.-&.2'$02'(-&1 .++.5 1'+$60/ 0*$0
 
"

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-10 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 4
(;+,%,722

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-10 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-10 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-10 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-11 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 6
(;+,%,733

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-11 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-11 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-11 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-11 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-11 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-12 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT QQ

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-12 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-12 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-12 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-12 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 17
(;+,%,755

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 8 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 11 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 12 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 13 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 14 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 15 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 16 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-13 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 17 of 17

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-14 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 6
(;+,%,766

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-14 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-14 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-14 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-14 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-14 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-15 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 19
(;+,%,777





Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'cD%o(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 2 of 19

"


*(,$'

$'$!!$, )$ $#(-!( #'*(
$%#     ++.(*1+ 3.,.0% "

"
 *#)'$*)$#
$%#   
2* +.;1+;A?<1B0A6<;
!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
(+.345&0)4*(10)4*05*0(*4&0)' $%#   

  * 0 36?67:4:2C:6D 2C6 6=:8:3=6 7@C 56C:G2E:G6 DE2EFD @? E96 32D:D @7 E96:C C6=2E:@?D9:AE@2AC:?4:A2=2DJ=66@CAC:?4:A2=C67F866 D66!' 

 .96J 2C6 ?@E C6BF:C65 E@ 6DE23=:D9 E92E E96J 92G6 366? A6CD64FE65 @C 92G6 2 H6==7@F?565762C@7A6CD64FE:@? D66!' 
A2C28C2A94 

 #@H6G6C 4@?DF=2C @77:46CD >FDE 56E6C>:?6 H96E96C E96 36?67:4:2CJ :D 32CC65 :?25>:DD:3=6@CDF3;64EE@56?:2= D66!' 



  * .96 C@=6D @7 4@?DF=2C @77:46CD :? AC@46DD:?8 0 2?5 0 42D6D 2C6 5:D4FDD65 :?  !'  2?5 E96 ?665 7@C 4@?7:56?E:2=:EJ :? 92?5=:?8 DF49 42D6D :D 4@G6C65:?!' =:8:3:=:EJ7@C02?50DE2EFD:D4@G6C65:?!'  2?5 56E2:=65 :?DECF4E:@?D @? AC@46DD:?8 AC@465FC6D 7@C 00 42D6D 2C6 AC@G:565 :?  !' 
!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
$%#   

  * /D6 42C6 H96? AC@46DD:?8 42D6D E@ 36 DFC6 E92E J@F 2C6 FD:?8 :?DECF4E:@?D 2AAC@AC:2E6 7@C E96 EJA6 @7 2FE@>2E65 DJDE6> J@FOC6 FD:?8 7@C E96 2AAC@AC:2E6 4@?DF=2CD64E:@?C@=6D D66!'
2?57@C0GD036?67:ED0 36?67:4:2C:6D =:<6 2== C67F866D 92G6 G6CJ DA64:7:4 AC@46DD:?8 2?5 6=:8:3:=:EJ C6BF:C6>6?ED 2?5 2C6 6?E:E=65 E@ 46CE2:? 36?67:ED E92E 0 36?67:4:2C:6D 5@ ?@E C646:G6  .96D6 :?4=F56 /- "@G6C?>6?E7F?565 >65:42= 6I2>D G@=F?E2CJ 286?4J DA@?D@CD9:A EC2G6= =@2?D 2?5 C646AE:@? 2?5 A=246>6?E 36?67:ED FA@? 2CC:G2= E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D 
!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 $%#   
3* !6320F092<3++.@2-66!'7@C56E2:=65:?DECF4E:@?D@? AC@46DD:?8 DE6AD 7@C 00 42D6D  $? @G6CG:6H E96 =:764J4=6 @7 2 !@C> $ ,67F866DJ=66 ,6=2E:G6 *6E:E:@? 7:=65 @? 3692=7 @7 2 36?67:4:2CJ @G6CD62D :D 2D 7@==@HD

         * *6E:E:@? :D 7:=65 H:E9 2?5 25;F5:42E65 2E 6:E96C E96 /- :E:K6?D9:A 2?5 $>>:8C2E:@?-6CG:46D /-$-
(63C2D<2@C.6I2D-6CG:466?E6C$7E96A6E:E:@? :D2AAC@G65:E:D7@CH2C565@G6CD62DG:2E96(2E:@?2=0:D26?E6C (0
E@E96 A@DE 92G:?8 ;FC:D5:4E:@? @G6C E96 36?67:4:2CJOD A=246 @7 C6D:56?46

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'c%Do(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 3 of 19


*/-$-@77:46C@C4@?DF=2C@77:46C H96C6/-$-:D?@EAC6D6?E
:?E6CG:6HD E96 36?67:4:2CJ E@ 56E6C>:?6 6=:8:3:=:EJ E@ EC2G6= E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D


  * $7 E96 36?67:4:2CJ :D 2AAC@G65 E@ EC2G6= E96 @77:46C :DDF6D EC2G6= 5@4F>6?E2E:@? E@ 6?23=6 E96 36?67:4:2CJ E@ EC2G6= E@ E96 /- 2?5 C6BF6DE 25>:DD:@?2E2/-A@CE@76?ECJ *) 
!@C042D6DE96@77:46C2=D@96=AD >2<6EC2G6=2CC2?86>6?ED/-FDE@>D2?5@C56C*C@E64E:@? *
@77:46C >2<6D E96 7:?2= 564:D:@? H96E96C E@ 25>:E E96 36?67:4:2CJ E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D


  * $7 E96 36?67:4:2CJ :D 7@F?5 :?6=:8:3=6 E@ EC2G6= E96 4@?DF=2C @77:46C :?7@C>D E96 36?67:4:2CJ 2?5 C6EFC?D E96 42D6 2D 2 @?DF=2C ,6EFC? G:2 E96 (0 E@ E96 2AAC@AC:2E6 /-$- -6CG:46 6?E6C 7@C A@DD:3=6 56?:2=  $7 E96 6G:56?46 AC@G:565 3J E96 @G6CD62D @77:46 :D :?DF77:4:6?E E@ DFAA@CE 2 56?:2= @C :D @G6C4@>6 3J 255:E:@?2= 6G:56?46 AC@G:565 3J E96 A6E:E:@?6C E96 /-$- -6CG:46 6?E6C C6277:C>D E96 42D6 2?5 D6?5D :E 324< E@ A@DE 7@C 4@?E:?F65 AC@46DD:?8

"
 *'$!(#+#+((

$%#   

2 * /-$- .;1 <;@B9.? BA5<?6A62@


  * D 2 >2EE6C @7 =2H 2FE9@C:EJ E@ 25;F5:42E6 2?5 AC@46DD C67F866 2?5 277:C>2E:G6 2DJ=F> 4=2:>D :?4=F5:?8 !@C> $ 7@==@HE@;@:? 56C:G2E:G6D @7 2DJ=66D2?5C67F866DC6DED6I4=FD:G6=JH:E9#- -66$($(2?5 /- 



  * /-$- :D E96 #- 25>:?:DE6C:?8 286?4J 2?5 E96 /-$- (63C2D<2 2?5 .6I2D -6CG:46 6?E6CD 92G6 AC:>2CJ C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ 7@C 2== $ 25;F5:42E:@?D 7@C DA@FD6 2?549:=5C6?@7C67F866D2?52DJ=66D (@E6.96 I64FE:G6)77:467@C $>>:8C2E:@? ,6G:6H @7 E96 6A2CE>6?E @7 %FDE:46 2=D@ 25;F5:42E6D 2DJ=F> 4=2:>D 7:=65 5676?D:G6=J @C C676CC65 3J /-$- 3FE 5@6D ?@E 25;F5:42E6 !@C> $ 2AA=:42E:@?D 7@C 56C:G2E:G6 C67F866 @C 2DJ=66 DE2EFD



        * @?DF=2C @77:46CD 24E 2D 286?ED @7 E96 /-$- -6CG:46 6?E6CD 7@C E96 AFCA@D6 @7 724:=:E2E:?8 @G6CD62D 00 42D6 AC@46DD:?8 2?5 G6C:7J:?8 E96 6=:8:3:=:EJ @7 E96 2AAC@G65 36?67:4:2C:6D 3FE ?@E 7@C 7:?2= 25;F5:42E:@? @7 E96 $   $7 2 4@?DF=2C @77:46C F?4@G6CD :?7@C>2E:@? 5FC:?8 42D6 AC@46DD:?8 E92E DF886DED /-$- D9@F=5 ?@E 92G6 2AAC@G65 2? $ A6E:E:@? E96 @77:46C D9@F=5 C6EFC? E96 42D6 G:2 E96 (0 E@ E96 25;F5:42E:?8 /-$- -6CG:46 6?E6C 7@C 7FCE96C 24E:@? 7@==@H:?8 E96 8F:52?46 :?  !'  2?5  !'  7@C C6A@CE:?8 :?7@C>2E:@? E92E 42==D :?E@ BF6DE:@? H96E96C E96 36?67:4:2CJ :D 6=:8:3=6 7@C 56C:G2E:G6 C67F866 @C 2DJ=F> DE2EFD

3* <;@B9.?'<926;.@2%?<02@@6;4


  * .96 C@=6 @7 4@?DF=2C @77:46CD :? 42D6 AC@46DD:?8 5:776CD 56A6?5:?8 @? H96E96C /-$-:DAC6D6?E2EA@DEH96E96CE9642D6:D2?2DJ=667@==@HE@;@:? M0:D2DN 0
@C2C67F8667@==@HE@;@:? M0:D2DN0
2?5H96E96CA@DE92D :>>:8C2?EG:D2AC@46DD:?8D@7EH2C6 $0)
@C:D2?@?$0)A@DE


* !'AC@G:56D86?6C2=8F:52?46@?AC@46DD:?80042D6D 196C6E96C6:D25:776C6?46:?92?5=:?842D6D32D65@?G:D2DJDE6>D ($0DJDE6> GD$0)
DA64:7:4:?DECF4E:@?D2C6AC@G:565:?E962AAC@AC:2E6D64E:@? 7@C 6I2>A=6 DJDE6>C6=2E65 6?EC:6D H96? 2 42D6 :D C646:G65 :?  !'  @C $0) DE2EFD D6EE:?8D :? 4@?DF=2C C6EFC?D :?  !'   -:>:=2C=J H96C6 E96C6

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'c%Do(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 4 of 19
2C65:776C6?E6=:8:3:=:EJDE2?52C5D 7@C6I2>A=6:?!' 
@?32CD 5:D4C6E:@?2CJ 56?:2=D @C :?25>:DD:3:=:E:6D
 @C 5:776C6?E AC@46DD:?8 :?DECF4E:@?D 7@C 0GD042D6D 7@C6I2>A=6:?DECF4E:@?D@?>65:42=6I2>D2?5EC62E>6?E:?  !'  @C 8F:56=:?6D @? EC2G6= 2CC2?86>6?ED :?  !' 
 E96  !' 8F:56=:?6D DA64:7J E@ H9:49 42D6D E96J 2AA=J  *@DED >FDE 42C67F==J 7@==@H 8F:56=:?6D 7@C E96 A2CE:4F=2C <:?5 @7 42D6 E96J 2C6 AC@46DD:?8


  * 1:E9 C682C5 E@ /-$- 2?5 ?@?/-$- AC6D6?46 A@DED 2?5 E96 4@?DF=2C C@=6 :? 00 AC@46DD:?8 A@DED D9@F=5 7@==@H E96 8F:56=:?6D 36=@H  (@E6 E92E 2 /-$-AC6D6?46 A@DE :D @?6 H96C6 /-$- :D 4@=@42E65 92D 2 A6C>2?6?E @77:46 2?5 2 4@F?E6CAC6D6?46 E92E C68F=2C=J D66D E96 AF3=:4

2
  * /-$- %?2@2;02 %<@A@

:
     *;.C.69./92

::
    *;.C.69./92

3
  *;.C.69./92 

4* ,<?839<D2@0?6=A6<;3<?++.@2@.;1921/F<A5/-$-.;1 +6@.*;6A@D6A5+$(F@A2:@


* <DA<*@2)56@(20A6<;

2
  *;.C.69./92

3
  * $? 255:E:@? A6C A2C28C2A9 3 23@G6 0 6=:8:3:=:EJ DE2?52C5D 2?5 AC@46DD:?8 2C6 5:776C6?E 7C@> E9@D6 FD65 :? 0 42D6D L E96 6I2>A=6 D9@H? 36=@H ?@E6D DE6AD H9:49 2AA=J @?=J E@ 0 @C @?=J E@ 0 42D6 AC@46DD:?8 :7 ?6:E96C :D DA64:7:65 E96 :?DECF4E:@? 2AA=:6D E@ 3@E9 0 2?5 0 42D6D

4
  * (@E6 E92E E96 7@==@H:?8 H@C<7=@H 56D4C:AE:@?D 2C6 :?E6?565 E@ D9@H 9@H /-$- 2?5 4@?DF=2C D64E:@?D :?E6C24E :? 00 42D6D 2?5 E@ 8:G6 4@?DF=2C D64E:@?D :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE /-$- :?DECF4E:@?D E@ :ED @77:46CD  #@H6G6C $0) A@DED H:E92/-$-AC6D6?46
>FDE7@==@H2AA=:423=6AC@46DD:?88F:56=:?6D :?  !'  C6=2E65 E@ E96 AC@46DD:?8 DE6AD 7@C H9:49 E96J 2C6 C6DA@?D:3=6 DF49 A@DED >FDE ?@E C6=J D@=6=J @? E96 7@==@H:?8 H@C<7=@H 492CED 7@C AC@46DD:?8 :?DECF4E:@?D


  *;.C.69./92

2
  *;.C.69./92

/-$-4E:@?

@?DF=2C4E:@?

*;.C.69./92

3
  *;.C.69./92

:
     *;.C.69./92 

::
    *;.C.69./92 

:::
    *;.C.69./92 

:G
   *;.C.69./92

 *;.C.69./92

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'c%Do(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 5 of 19  *;.C.69./92

G
    *;.C.69./92 

G:
   *;.C.69./92

4
  *;.C.69./92

:
     *;.C.69./92

::
    *;.C.69./92

:::
    *;.C.69./92

:G
   *;.C.69./92

G
    *;.C.69./92 

G:
   *;.C.69./92

5
  *;.C.69./92

:
     *;.C.69./92

::
    *;.C.69./92

:::
    *;.C.69./92 

:G
   *;.C.69./92

G
    *;.C.69./92 

G:
   *;.C.69./92

/-$-4E:@? *;.C.69./92  

@?DF=2C4E:@?

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'c%Do(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 6 of 19

6
  *;.C.69./92 /-$-4E:@?
*;.C.69./92
7
   *;.C.69./92 /-$-4E:@? *;.C.69./92

*;.C.69./92
@?DF=2C4E:@? *;.C.69./92
@?DF=2C4E:@? *;.C.69./92

8
  *;.C.69./92

:
     *;.C.69./92

::
    *;.C.69./92

9
  *;.C.69./92  <? .@2@ #<A ==?<C21 A< )?.C29

*;.C.69./92 *;.C.69./92

*;.C.69./92

*;.C.69./92

:
   *;.C.69./92

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'cD%o(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 7 of 19 :
     *;.C.69./92

::
    *;.C.69./92 

:::
    *;.C.69./92 

;
   *;.C.69./92

*;.C.69./92 *;.C.69./92

*;.C.69./92

<
  *;.C.69./92

*;.C.69./92

"
 *$##)!)-#'* (-!+#+(,$'

$%#    !3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 $%#   
2* $C2?C62D6A2CE>6?E@7-E2E6C64@C5DC6=2E65E@G:D22?5C67F866AC@46DD:?8 2C64@?D:56C65M4@?7:56?E:2=NF?56C$( 7
2?5FD6@7E96D6C64@C5D:DC6DEC:4E65 E@ E96 7@C>F=2E:@? 2>6?5>6?E 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @C 6?7@C46>6?E @7 :>>:8C2E:@? ?2E:@?2=:EJ 2?5 @E96C =2HD @7 E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D  1:E9 =:>:E65 6I46AE:@?D 7FCE96C 56D4C:365 36=@H :?7@C>2E:@? C682C5:?8 DA64:7:4 C67F866 42D6D >2J ?@E 36 C6=62D65 E@ 2?J@?6 @E96C E92? E96 2AA=:42?E 9:>D6=7 @C 96CD6=7 2?5 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CE:6D 6I46AE 2D ?66565 3J @C82?:K2E:@?D 5:C64E=J :?G@=G65 :? E96 C67F866 AC@46DD:?8 DJDE6> @C 7@C FD6 3J '6>36CD @7 @?8C6DD H9@ 92G6 ?665 @7 E96 :?7@C>2E:@? 7@C E96 7@C>F=2E:@? 2>6?5>6?E 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @C 6?7@C46>6?E @7 :>>:8C2E:@? ?2E:@?2=:EJ @C @E96C =2HD @7 E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D  -66  !'  7@C 255:E:@?2= :?7@C>2E:@? @? AC@E64E:?8 G:D2 :?7@C>2E:@?

  * @?7:56?E:2=:EJ :? E9:D 4@?E6IE C676CD E@ :ED 5:D4=@DFC6 2?5 C6=62D23:=:EJ ?@E :ED D64FC:EJ4=2DD:7:42E:@? -662=D@!'


*/?:E65(2E:@?D#:89@>>:DD:@?6C7@C,67F866D /(#,
A@=:4JC6BF:C6D DEC:4E 4@?7:56?E:2=:EJ C682C5:?8 C67F866D 2?5 2DJ=F> D66<6CD  ,67F866D C676CC65 E@ E96 /- C67F866 AC@8C2> 3J /(#, 92G6 D:8?65 2 4@?7:56?E:2=:EJ C6=62D6 E@ A6C>:E /(#, E@ C6=62D6 A6CD@?2= :?7@C>2E:@? E@ C6D6EE=6>6?E 8@G6C?>6?ED 2?5 AC@46DD:?8 286?4:6D
!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
$%#   
4  * B61.;02 <; '292.@2 <3 ;3<?:.A6<;

* ==960.;A;>B6?62@C67F8662AA=:42?E 36?67:4:2CJ
>2J>2<625:C64E :?BF:CJE@E96,6D6EE=6>6?E-FAA@CE6?E6C ,-
@C4@?DF=2E6C6DA@?D:3=67@C E96 AC@46DD:?8 @7 9:D96C 0 42D6 L @C2==J @C :? HC:E:?8 L 4@?46C?:?8 E96 DE2EFD @7 9:D @C 96C 42D6  $7 2? 2AA=:42?E 92D 2 D6C:@FD :>A65:>6?E DF49 2D 286

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'c%Do(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 8 of 19
:==?6DD @C A9JD:42= 5:D23:=:EJ E92E AC6G6?ED 9:> @C 96C 7C@> 2D<:?8 @? 9:D @C 96C @H? 3692=7 >:?:>2= 42D6 DE2EFD :?7@C>2E:@? >2J 36 AC@G:565 E@ 2 E9:C5 A2CEJ :7 E96 :?BF:C6C D2E:D724E@C:=J 6DE23=:D96D 9:D @C 96C 3@?2 7:56D  @?DF=2C @77:46CD D9@F=5 6I6C4:D6 4@>>@? D6?D6 2?5 42FE:@? :? C6DA@?5:?8 E@ DF49 :?BF:C:6D 2?5 D9@F=5 AC@G:56 @?=J E96 >:?:>F> :?7@C>2E:@? ?646DD2CJ E@ C6DA@?5 E@ E96 :?BF:CJ  2D6 DE2EFD :?7@C>2E:@? >2J 2=D@ 36 AC@G:565 E@ 46CE2:? 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CE:6D 2D 56D4C:365 36=@H


* %'"/(#,$"(.;1$A52?$33606.9;A6AF;>B6?62@@?DF=2C @77:46CD >2J C6DA@?5 5:C64E=J E@ @C2= @C HC:EE6? :?BF:C:6D 23@FE E96 DE2EFD @7 42D6D >2563JE *,'/(#,2?5$)'E96DA@?D@C:?8C6D6EE=6>6?E286?4J:?E96 /?:E65-E2E6D@C2?J@E96C@77:4:2=6?E:EJDF492D2/- >32DDJ@C#-@77:46 E92E C6BF:C6D 42D6 :?7@C>2E:@? E@ 724:=:E2E6 AC@46DD:?8 @7 E96 42D6


  * <;4?2@@6<;.9 ;>B6?62@

2
*1C:EE6? :?4=F5:?86>2:=D
:?BF:C:6D7C@>'6>36CD@7@?8C6DD@CE96:C DE277D E92E 5@ ?@E DA64:7:42==J C6=2E6 E@ 25;F5:42E:@? 564:D:@?D 3J #- D9@F=5 36 2?DH6C65 H:E9 @?=J E96 :?7@C>2E:@? ?646DD2CJ E@ 2?DH6C E96 :?BF:CJ 2D6DA64:7:4 :?7@C>2E:@? :? C6DA@?D6 E@ E6=6A9@?:4 :?BF:C:6D 7C@> '6>36CD @C E96:C DE277D >2J ?@E 36 AC@G:565  (@ 4@A:6D @7 5@4F>6?ED @C @E96C :E6>D 7C@> 2 42D6 7:=6 >2J 36 AC@G:565  ,6DA@?D6D E@ 42D6 DE2EFD :?BF:C:6D D9@F=5 :?4=F562C6>:?56CE92EAFCDF2?EE@$(-64E:@? 7
E96:?7@C>2E:@?

:
     * :D E@ 36 EC62E65 2D 4@?7:56?E:2=

::
    * :D 36:?8 AC@G:565 E@ E96> D@=6=J 7@C E96 AFCA@D6D C6=2E65 E@ E96 7@C>F=2E:@? 2>6?5>6?E 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @C 6?7@C46>6?E @7 E96 :>>:8C2E:@? ?2E:@?2=:EJ 2?5 @E96C =2HD @7 E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D

:::
    * D9@F=5 ?@E 36 D92C65 H:E9 @E96C '6>36CD @7 @?8C6DD @C E96:C DE277D 6I46AE 2D DA64:7:42==J ?66565 7@C E96 27@C6>6?E:@?65 AFCA@D6D 2?5

:G
   * D9@F=5 ?@E 36 C6=62D65 E@ E96 AF3=:4

3
*$7E96:?4@>:?8@?8C6DD:@?2==6EE6CC6BF6DEDE92EE96 >32DDJC6DA@?5 5:C64E=J E@ 2 4@?DE:EF6?E @C @E96C E9:C5 A2CEJ E96 4@?DF=2C @77:46C D9@F=5 AC@G:56 E96 C6BF6DE65 42D6 DF>>2CJ :?7@C>2E:@? E@ E96 '6>36C @7 @?8C6DD F?=6DD :E C6=2E6D E@ 25;F5:42E:@? 564:D:@?D >256 3J #-  $?4=F56 E96 7@==@H:?8DE2E6>6?E*FCDF2?EE@-64E:@? 7
@7E96$>>:8C2E:@?2?5 (2E:@?2=:EJ 4E .96 C64@C5D @7 E96 6A2CE>6?E @7 -E2E6 2?5 @7 5:A=@>2E:4 2?5 4@?DF=2C @77:46D @7 E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D A6CE2:?:?8 E@ E96 :DDF2?46 @C C67FD2= @7 G:D2D @C A6C>:ED E@ 6?E6C E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D D92== 36 4@?D:56C65 4@?7:56?E:2= 2?5 D92== 36 FD65 @?=J 7@C E96 7@C>F=2E:@? 2>6?5>6?E 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @C 6?7@C46>6?E @7 :>>:8C2E:@? ?2E:@?2=:EJ 2?5 @E96C =2HD @7 E96 /?:E65 -E2E6DN $? 244@C52?46 H:E9 =2H 2?5 A@=:4:6D 8@G6C?:?8 E96 4@?7:56?E:2=:EJ @7 6A2CE>6?E @7 -E2E6 C67F866 AC@46DD:?8 C64@C5D H6 2C6 F?23=6 E@ AC@G:56 :?7@C>2E:@? @? DA64:7:4 C67F866 42D6D 5:C64E=J E@ J@FC 4@?DE:EF6?E  .96 C67F866 2AA=:42?E @C 2 E9:C5 A2CEJ 2FE9@C:K65 3J E96 2AA=:42?E E@ C646:G6 :?7@C>2E:@? >2J @3E2:? :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE E96 42D6 3J :?BF:C:?8 5:C64E=J E@ E96 ,6D6EE=6>6?E -FAA@CE 6?E6C 92?5=:?8 E96 42D6  16 2AAC64:2E6 J@FC F?56CDE2?5:?8 @7 E96 6A2CE>6?ED 4@?46C? E@ 6?DFC6 4@?7:56?E:2=:EJ :? E96 /-,67F8665>:DD:@?D*C@8C2> /-,*



* )56?1%.?AF;>B6?62@

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-001!12-wm'c%Do(c#u$me#n$t##: 3#2(-1&5##F"ile%d): 03%/1"0/1$7'Pag%e 9 of 19
2
*1C:EE6? :?4=F5:?86>2:=D
:?BF:C:6D7C@>/-"@G6C?>6?E=2H 6?7@C46>6?E 6?E:E:6D E92E 5@ ?@E DA64:7:42==J C6=2E6 E@ 25;F5:42E:@? 564:D:@?D 3J #- 3FE 2C6 >256 7@C @77:4:2= AFCA@D6D H:== 86?6C2==J 36 2?DH6C65 H:E9 E96 C6BF6DE65 :?7@C>2E:@?  $?7@C>2E:@? :? C6DA@?D6 E@ E6=6A9@?:4 :?BF:C:6D >2J ?@E 36 AC@G:565  ,6DA@?D6D >FDE 36 4@@C5:?2E65 H:E9 2?5 D6?E 7C@> *,',67F866 5>:DD:@?D H:E9 :?G@=G6>6?E @7 E96 &682= 5G:D6COD )77:46 H96C6 ?66565
3
*1C:EE6? :?4=F5:?86>2:=
:?BF:C:6D7@C42D6DE2EFD:?7@C>2E:@?7C@>E9:C5 A2CE:6D DF49 2D 2EE@C?6JD @C 244C65:E65 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6D >2J 36 2?DH6C65 H:E9 E96 C6BF6DE65 :?7@C>2E:@? :7 E96 C6BF6DE :D 244@>A2?:65 3J @C AC646565 3J24@>A=6E652?5D:8?65!@C>" @C!@C>"$H9:49:D:DDF653J #-
:
*.96!@C>" @C!@C>"$>FDE:?4=F564@>A=6E62?5G6C:7:65 :?7@C>2E:@? :?4=F5:?8 D:8?2EFC6 7C@> E96 C67F866 2AA=:42?E 2D H6== 2D 4@>A=6E6 :?7@C>2E:@? :?4=F5:?8 D:8?2EFC6 7C@> E96 C6=6G2?E E9:C5 A2CEJ  ,-D @C 4@?DF=2C @77:46CD D9@F=5 6?DFC6 E92E E96 2AA=:42?EOD D:8?2EFC6 @? E96 7@C> :D G6C:7:65 282:?DE 9:D96C D:8?2EFC6 @? 7:=6 :7 2G2:=23=6  ,6DA@?D6D E@ 42D6 DE2EFD :?BF:C:6D >2J @?=J 36 D6?E E@ E96 A9JD:42= 255C6DD @C 6>2:= 255C6DD AC@G:565 :? E96 @C:8:?2= !@C> " @C "$  2D6 DE2EFD :?7@C>2E:@? :? C6DA@?D6 E@ E6=6A9@?:4 C6BF6DED 7C@> E9:C5 A2CE:6D >2J ?@E 36 AC@G:565
::
    * .96C6 :D ?@E 2 567:?65 G2=:5:EJ A6C:@5 7@C E96 " @C "$ #@H6G6C :E >2J 36 2AAC@AC:2E6 E@ 4964< H96E96C E96 " @C "$ C6>2:?D G2=:5  H96E96C E96 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CEJ C6>2:?D E96 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 @7 E96 :?5:G:5F2=
4
*1C:EE6?:?BF:C:6D :?4=F5:?86>2:=
7@C42D6DE2EFD:?7@C>2E:@?7C@>@E96C E9:C5 A2CE:6D DF49 2D 72>:=J >6>36CD >2J 36 2?DH6C65 H:E9 E96 C6BF6DE65 :?7@C>2E:@? :7 E96 C6BF6DE :D 244@>A2?:65 3J @C AC646565 3J 2 =6EE6C 7C@> E96 2AA=:42?E AC@G:5:?8 2FE9@C:K2E:@? E92E E96 :?7@C>2E:@? 36 D92C65 H:E9 E96 E9:C5 A2CEJ  .96C6 :D ?@ DA64:7:4 7@C>2E 7@C E9:D =6EE6C 3FE :E >FDE 4@?E2:? 2E 2 >:?:>F> E96 2AA=:42?EOD 7F== ?2>6 2?5 /-,* 42D6 ?F>36C 2=@?8 H:E9 E96 7F== ?2>6 @7 E96 E9:C5 A2CEJ E@ H9@> E96 :?7@C>2E:@? >2J 36 C6=62D65 2?5 :E >FDE 36 D:8?65 3J E96 2AA=:42?E  ,-D @C 4@?DF=2C @77:46CD D9@F=5 6?DFC6 E92E E96 2AA=:42?EOD D:8?2EFC6 @? E96 =6EE6C :D G6C:7:65 282:?DE 9:D96C D:8?2EFC6 @? 7:=6 :7 2G2:=23=6  .96 =6EE6C >FDE 2=D@ 4@?E2:? 2 A9JD:42= 255C6DD 2?5@C 6>2:= 255C6DD 7@C E96 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CEJ  2D6 DE2EFD :?7@C>2E:@? :? C6DA@?D6 E@ E6=6A9@?:4 C6BF6DED 7C@> E9:C5 A2CE:6D >2J ?@E 36 AC@G:565
5
  * .96 :?7@C>2E:@? E92E 42? 36 AC@G:565 E@ 2? 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CEJ :D =:>:E65 E@ 42D6 DE2EFD :?7@C>2E:@?  $?BF:C:6D 7@C @E96C :?7@C>2E:@? C682C5:?8 DA64:7:4 C67F866 42D6D >2J ?@E 36 AC@G:565 E@ E9:C5 A2CE:6D 6G6? :7 2FE9@C:K2E:@? 92D 366? AC@G:565  !@C 6I2>A=6 2? 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CEJ >2J ?@E :?BF:C6 2D E@ E96 C62D@? 2 C67F866 2AA=:42?E 92D 366? 566>65 :?6=:8:3=6 7@C * 2446DD  !FCE96C 2? 2FE9@C:K65 E9:C5 A2CEJ :D ?@E A6C>:EE65 E@ 244@>A2?J 2 C67F866 2AA=:42?E E@ ,- :?E2<6 2?5 AC6D4C66?:?8 @C 6?8286 :? @E96C 7@C>D @7 :?G@=G6>6?E :? C67F866 AC@46DD:?8
6
  * $7 :?7@C>2E:@? 5:D4=@DFC6 E@ E9:C5 A2CE:6D 92D ?@E 36 2FE9@C:K65 C6DA@?D6D E@ :?BF:C:6D >FDE 36 =:>:E65 E@ 86?6C2= 56D4C:AE:G6 >2E6C:2= 23@FE

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 10 of 19
E96 /-,* @C 2 56D4C:AE:@? @7 AC@8C2> AC@465FC6D E92E >:89E 36 @7 2DD:DE2?46 E@ E96 :?BF:C6C


  * @?E24E E96 )77:46 @7 5>:DD:@?D :? E96 FC62F @7 *@AF=2E:@? ,67F866D 2?5 ':8C2E:@? *,'
7@C7FCE96C:?7@C>2E:@?@?C67F866C64@C5D@CE6>A=2E6D7@C C6DA@?D6 E@ :?BF:C:6D

5 *;.C.69./92

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
$%#   &0)22*0).8 
 &&0)
 &$%#   


  *;.C.69./92

2
  *;.C.69./92

3
  *;.C.69./92 

4
  *;.C.69./92 

5
  *;.C.69./92

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
&'+.3454*05*0(*)$%#   &0)22*0).8 
 '&//&0)(+.3454*05*0(*&0)
 '&//&0)( +.3454*05*0(*$%#   


  *;.C.69./92

2
  *;.C.69./92 

3
  *;.C.69./92

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 8-.'.5%)$%#   


  *;.C.69./92 

2
  *;.C.69./92 

3
  *;.C.69./92

"
 *!!)-$'$!!$,# )$ $#'*$'(-!++())*(

$%#   

2* 9646/696AFB61296;2@.@366=:8:3=6E@EC2G6=E@E96/-2D272>:=J>6>36C@7 2? :?5:G:5F2= 8C2?E65 C67F866 @C 2DJ=66 DE2EFD


  * .96 36?67:4:2CJ >FDE 6DE23=:D9 E96:C :56?E:EJ 2?5 2 BF2=:7J:?8 C6=2E:@?D9:A H:E9E96C67F866@C2DJ=66 D66!' 

2?5


  * .96 36?67:4:2CJ >FDE 36 56E6C>:?65 E@ ?@E 36 DF3;64E E@ 2?J 32CD :?25>:DD:3:=:E:6D @C C62D@?D 7@C 56?:2= @7 E96:C 42D6 F?=6DD DF49 :DDF6D 92G6 366? D2E:D724E@C:=JC6D@=G65 D66!' 


!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
(+.345&0)4*(10)4*05*0(*&0)
' 2&35.&/&0))2&35.&/$%#   &0)22*0).8 
 ( 2&35.&/&0)
 (2&35.&/$%#   

3* #<17B160.A6<;<3'23B422<?@F9B:9.6:036?67:4:2C:6D2C6 6=:8:3=6 7@C 56C:G2E:G6 DE2EFD @? E96 32D:D @7 E96:C C6=2E:@?D9:A E@ 2 AC:?4:A2= 2DJ=66 @C AC:?4:A2= C67F866  .96J 2C6 ?@E C6BF:C65 E@ 6DE23=:D9 E92E E96J 92G6 366? A6CD64FE65

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 11 of 19

@C92G62H6==7@F?565762C@7A6CD64FE:@? D66!'A2C28C2A94 

 -:>:=2C=J E96 4C65:3:=:EJ @7 E96 A6E:E:@?6COD @C:8:?2= 2DJ=F> @C C67F866 4=2:> :D ?@E H:E9:?4@?DF=2C@77:46CDO;FC:D5:4E:@?E@C6G:D:E D66!'7@C8F:52?46@? 42D6D :? H9:49 :?7@C>2E:@? AC6D6?E65 3J E96 36?67:4:2CJ :?5:42E6D 2 D:8?:7:42?E :DDF6D H:E9 E96 A6E:E:@?6COD C67F866 @C 2D=J66 4=2:>


4* .@2%?<02@@6;4.9:DD64E:@?562=D@?=JH:E96=:8:3:=:EJ7@C02?50 DE2EFD  -66 86?6C2= 0 2?5 0 42D6 AC@46DD:?8 8F:56=:?6D :?  !' 

"
 *++&B.963F6;4'29.A6<;@56= D6A5'23B422<?@F922
$%#   
2* ;A?<1B0A6<;.96C62C6EH@724E@CD:?56>@?DEC2E:?82BF2=:7J:?8C6=2E:@?D9:AD H:E9 2 C67F866 @C 2DJ=66

  * ? 6=:8:3=6 A6E:E:@?6C L D66 A2C28C2A9 3 2?5

  *  MDA@FD6N @C M49:=5N C6=2E:@?D9:A H:E9 E96 A6E:E:@?6C L D66 A2C28C2A9 4 7@C 2? @G6CG:6H @7 E96D6 BF2=:7J:?8 C6=2E:@?D9:AD A2C28C2A9 5 7@C :?7@C>2E:@? @? E96 MDA@FD6N C6=2E:@?D9:A 2?5 A2C28C2A9 6 7@C :?7@C>2E:@? @? E96 M49:=5N C6=2E:@?D9:A)E96C72>:=:2=C6=2E:@?D9:AD H9:4942??@E36E9632D:D7@C00 DE2EFD
 2C6 255C6DD65 :? A2C28C2A9 7
3* 9646/92%2A6A6<;2?
!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
&+.3454*05*0(*$%#   

  * '23B422 <? @F922 (A.AB@  .96 !@C> $ ,67F866DJ=66 ,6=2E:G6 *6E:E:@? 7@C 00 36?67:4:2C:6D >2J 36 7:=65 3J 2 C67F866 H9@ H2D 25>:EE65 E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D 2D 2 AC:?4:A2= C67F866 @C 3J 2? 2DJ=66 H9@ H2D 8C2?E65 2DJ=F> 2D2AC:?4:A2=2DJ=666:E96C3J/-$-@C3JE966A2CE>6?E@7%FDE:46OD I64FE:G6 )77:467@C$>>:8C2E:@?,6G:6H-662=D@!'A2C28C2A92 
 3
7@C :?7@C>2E:@? @? A6E:E:@?D 7:=65 3J &*,D 2?5 ?2EFC2=:K65 4:E:K6?D H9@ H6C6 C67F866D @C 2DJ=66D  !@C >@C6 86?6C2= :?7@C>2E:@? @? 7:=:?8 25;F5:42E:@? 2?5 AC@46DD:?8 @7 $ A6E:E:@?D D66  !' 
!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 $%#   &0) 22*0).8 
 $%#   

* 3320A<32.A5<3%2A6A6<;2?
2
  *  36?67:4:2CJ :D :?6=:8:3=6 7@C !@C> $ 36?67:ED :7 E96 A6E:E:@?6C 5:6D 367@C6 E96 36?67:4:2CJOD 2CC:G2= E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D  $? DF49 4:C4F>DE2?46D E96 36?67:4:2CJ D9@F=5 ?@E 36 :DDF65 EC2G6= 2FE9@C:K2E:@?  $?DE625 E96 @77:46C D9@F=5 @3E2:? 2 562E9 46CE:7:42E6 @C @E96C 6G:56?46 @7 E96 A6E:E:@?6COD 562E9 2?5 C6EFC? :E 2=@?8 H:E9 E96 !@C> $ G:2 E96 (0 E@ /-$- 7@C E96 42D6 E@ 36C6@A6?652?556?:65 D66!'@?4@?DF=2CC6EFC?D

3
  * $? D@>6 4:C4F>DE2?46D E96 36?67:4:2CJ >2J 2AA=J 7@C 9F>2?:E2C:2? A2C@=6H:E9/-$-:?@C56CE@EC2G6=E@E96/?:E65-E2E6D -66!'  7@C >@C6 :?7@C>2E:@? @? 9F>2?:E2C:2? A2C@=6

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
&&0)($%#   
4* 2;23606.?F9646/696AF

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 12 of 19


* (=<B@2<?5691!@C>$>2J367:=65@?3692=7@76:E96C2DA@FD6@C 249:=52D567:?65C6DA64E:G6=J:?$( 2
 
2?5$( 3
 
  
 D66 567:?:E:@?D :?  !' 
   D6A2C2E6 !@C> $ >FDE 36 7:=65 7@C 6249 BF2=:7J:?8 72>:=J >6>36C  *2C28C2A9D 5 2?5 6 36=@H AC@G:56 255:E:@?2= :?7@C>2E:@? @? DA@FD6 2?5 49:=5 C6=2E:@?D9:AD A2C28C2A9 7 255C6DD6D @E96C 72>:=:2= C6=2E:@?D9:AD


* '29.A6<;@56= 2FA<9646/696AF036?67:4:2C:6D2C66=:8:3=67@C 56C:G2E:G6 DE2EFD @? E96 32D:D @7 E96:C C6=2E:@?D9:A E@ 2 AC:?4:A2= 2DJ=66 @C AC:?4:A2= C67F866  .96J 2C6 ?@E C6BF:C65 E@ 6DE23=:D9 E92E E96J 92G6 366? A6CD64FE65 @C 92G6 2 H6==7@F?565 762C @7 A6CD64FE:@? @? 244@F?E @7 C246 C6=:8:@? ?2E:@?2=:EJ >6>36CD9:A :? 2 A2CE:4F=2C D@4:2= 8C@FA @C A@=:E:42= @A:?:@? 2D56D4C:365:?E967:CDED6?E6?46@7E96C67F866567:?:E:@?2E$( 2
 


2
  * /?=:<6 2 AC:?4:A2= C67F866 @C 2DJ=F> 2AA=:42?E 0 36?67:4:2C:6D >2J 36 6=:8:3=6 7@C 56C:G2E:G6 DE2EFD 6G6? :7 E96J 2C6 7:C>=J C6D6EE=65 :? 2?@E96C 4@F?ECJ D:?46 E96 7:C> C6D6EE=6>6?E 32C 5@6D ?@E 2AA=J E@ E96>

3
  * .96D6 36?67:4:2C:6D 2=D@ ?665 ?@E 36 E96 D2>6 ?2E:@?2=:EJ 2D E96 $ A6E:E:@?6C 2?5 >2J C6D:56 :? E96:C 4@F?ECJ @7 ?2E:@?2=:EJ @C 2?J @E96C 4@F?ECJ

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
&'2&35.&/(&0))$%#   &0)
 $%#   


* #.AB?2<3+&B.963F6;4'29.A6<;@56=@

2
*$?@C56CE@56C:G60@C0DE2EFDF?56C!, 4
2?5!,  3
E96BF2=:7J:?8C6=2E:@?D9:A36EH66?E96A6E:E:@?6C2?5E96 36?67:4:2CJ

:
     * 'FDE 92G6 6I:DE65 2E E96 E:>6 E92E E96 A6E:E:@?6C H2D 8C2?E65 2DJ=F> 7@C042D6D
@C25>:EE65E@E96/?:E65-E2E6D2D2C67F866 7@C 0 42D6D
 2?5

::
    * 'FDE 4@?E:?F6 E@ 6I:DE 2E E96 E:>6 @7 7:=:?8 7@C !@C> $ 7@==@H:?8E@;@:? 36?67:ED 2?5 2E E96 E:>6 @7 E96 DA@FD6 @C 49:=5OD DF3D6BF6?E 25>:DD:@? E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D

3
  * .96 6I46AE:@? E@ E9:D :D 2 49:=5 H9@ 925 366? 4@?46:G65 3FE H2D ?@E 3@C? H2D:?FE6C@
2D@7E9652E6@?H9:49E96A6E:E:@?6C24BF:C65DE2EFD D66A2C28C2A96 
36=@H


4
  * ,6=2E:@?D9:AD 4C62E65 27E6C E96 52E6 @7 E96 A6E:E:@?6COD 2DJ=F> 8C2?E @C C67F866 25>:DD:@? 5@ ?@E BF2=:7J 7@C !@C> $ AFCA@D6D 2=E9@F89 E96 C67F866 @C 2DJ=66 >2J 36 6=:8:3=6 E@ 7:=6 2 !@C> $ 7@C E96 D2>6 :?5:G:5F2= @?46E92EC67F866@C2DJ=6625;FDEDE@&2H7F=*6C>2?6?E,6D:56?E &*,
 DE2EFD

5
  *  BF2=:7J:?8 C6=2E:@?D9:A H:== 462D6 E@ 6I:DE :7 AC:@C E@ E96 2AAC@G2= @7 E96 !@C> $ @C 2 36?67:4:2CJOD 25>:DD:@? :?E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D E96 A6E:E:@?6C 2?5DA@FD65:G@C46E96A6E:E:@?6COD49:=5>2CC:6D D66A2C28C2A96 
 36=@H
@CE96A6E:E:@?6C5:6D D66A2C28C2A93 
23@G6


!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 &
&0)
'2&35.&/ $%#   

5* 9646/696AF<3++(=<B@2

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 13 of 19


* &B.963F6;4".??6.42.@BF2=:7J2D20036?67:4:2CJDA@FD6E96 :?5:G:5F2=>FDE>66EE96567:?:E:@?@7DA@FD62D567:?65:?$( 2
 
 49:=5D A2C6?E @?=J BF2=:7:6D 2D 2 36?67:4:2CJ :7 >2CC:65 E@ E96 A6E:E:@?6C 2E E96 E:>6 E96 A6E:E:@?6C 24BF:C65 2DJ=66 @C C67F866 DE2EFD


* %?<EF".??6.42.96E6C>DMDA@FD6NMH:76N2?5M9FD32?5N5@?@E:?4=F56 2 DA@FD6 H:76 @C 9FD32?5 3J C62D@? @7 2?J >2CC:286 46C6>@?J H96C6 E96 4@?EC24E:?8 A2CE:6D E96C6E@ 2C6 ?@E A9JD:42==J AC6D6?E :? E96 AC6D6?46 @7 6249 @E96C :6AC@IJ>2CC:286D
F?=6DDE96>2CC:28692D366?4@?DF>>2E65

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 '&0)($%#   

2
  * $7 2 AC@IJ >2CC:286 92D DF3D6BF6?E=J 366? 4@?DF>>2E65 E96? E96 52E6 @7 E96 >2CC:286 :D 566>65 E@ C6=2E6 324< E@ E96 52E6 @7 E96 AC@IJ >2CC:286 46C6>@?J :6E9652E6@7E96AC@IJ>2CC:2864@?EC24E
-66!' OD 567:?:E:@? @7 M>2CC:286N  .9FD :7 2 AC@IJ 46C6>@?J 92D @44FCC65 AC:@C E@ E96 A6E:E:@?6COD 2DJ=F> 8C2?E @C C67F866 25>:DD:@? 3FE 4@?DF>>2E:@? @44FCC65 27E6C DF49 8C2?E @C 25>:DD:@? E92E >2CC:286 :D G2=:5 3642FD6 E96 >2CC:286 52E6 C6=2E6D 324< E@ E96 AC@IJ >2CC:286 46C6>@?J 52E6

3
  * @?DF>>2E:@? AC:@C E@ E96 AC@IJ >2CC:286 46C6>@?J 5@6D ?@E >2<6 E96 >2CC:286 G2=:5  $7 E96 4@FA=6 92D ?@E 366? :? 6249 @E96COD AC6D6?46 D:?46 E96 AC@IJ46C6>@?J :64@F=5?@E92G69252?J@AA@CEF?:EJE@6?8286:? A9JD:42= C6=2E:@?D
 E96? E96 >2CC:286 :D ?@E G2=:5

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
$%#   


* ".??6.42?.B1.9636?67:4:2CJ:D?@E6=:8:3=6E@56C:G6DE2EFD:796D96:D 2 9FD32?5 @C H:76 56E6C>:?65 3J /-$- E@ 92G6 2EE6>AE65 @C 4@?DA:C65 E@ 6?E6C :?E@ 2 >2CC:286 D@=6=J 7@C E96 AFCA@D6 @7 6G25:?8 :>>:8C2E:@? =2HD

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 $%#   

6* 9646/696AF<3++5691.@BF2=:7J2D20036?67:4:2CJ2D249:=5 E96:?5:G:5F2=>FDE36F?>2CC:652?5>66EE96567:?:E:@?@7M49:=5N:?$( 3
 
 
 



  * 9:=5 -E2EFD 196? $ !:=65 2?5 5;F5:42E65 2?5 2E 5>:DD:@?

2
  * .96 A2C6?E49:=5 C6=2E:@?D9:A >FDE 6I:DE 2E E96 E:>6 E96 $ H2D 7:=65 2E E96 E:>6 @7 :ED 25;F5:42E:@? 2?5 2E E96 E:>6 @7 E96 36?67:4:2CJOD DF3D6BF6?E25>:DD:@?E@E96/?:E65-E2E6D D66!, 3
2?5  4



3
  * -F3;64E E@ 46CE2:? D:EF2E:@?D 8@G6C?65 3J E96 9:=5 -E2EFD *C@E64E:@? 4EOD -**F3=:4&2H
M28:?8@FENAC@G:D:@?D249:=5:?4=F56D @?=J 2? F?>2CC:65 A6CD@? F?56C E96 286 @7   44@C5:?8=J E96 49:=5 >FDE 36 3@E9 F?>2CC:65 2?5 F?56C  J62CD @7 286 2E E96 E:>6 96 @C D96 :D :DDF65 E96 2AAC@AC:2E6 5@4F>6?E2E:@? 7@C EC2G6= 2?5 2E E96 E:>6 E92E 96 @C D96 2AA=:6D 7@C 25>:DD:@? E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D F?=6DD E96 -* 2AA=:6D  -66 A2C28C2A9 
36=@H7@C>@C6:?7@C>2E:@?@?-*AC@G:D:@?D



* 56916;*A2?<!, 4
2?5!, 3
2==@H249:=5E@BF2=:7J 7@C 0 @C 0 DE2EFD 6G6? :7 E96 49:=5 H2D ?@E 3@C? F?E:= 27E6C E96 A6E:E:@?6C H2D 8C2?E652DJ=F>@C25>:EE652D2C67F866AC@G:565DF4949:=5H2D:?FE6C@ :6 E96 49:=5 925 366? 4@?46:G65 3FE H2D ?@E J6E 3@C?
 AC:@C E@ E96 52E6 @? H9:49 E96 A6E:E:@?6C 24BF:C65 DF49 DE2EFD  D DF49 2 !@C> $ >2J 36 2AAC@G65 7@C 2 49:=5 H9@ 925 366? 4@?46:G65 3FE H2D ?@E 3@C? 2D @7 E96 52E6 @? H9:49 E96

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 14 of 19
A6E:E:@?6C 24BF:C65 DE2EFD D@ =@?8 2D E96 36?67:4:2CJ 72==D H:E9:? @?6 @7 E96 567:?:E:@?D@7M49:=5ND6E7@CE9:?$( 3
 



* .@2@3<?5691(A.AB@

2
  * =E9@F89 2 A6E:E:@?6C H:== FDF2==J 36 E96 3:@=@8:42= A2C6?E @7 E96 :? FE6C@ 49:=5 4=2:>65 2D E96 56C:G2E:G6 :E :D A@DD:3=6 7@C DF49 2 36?67:4:2CJ E@ BF2=:7J 2D 2 56C:G2E:G6 6G6? :7 E96 A6E:E:@?6C :D ?@E E96 3:@=@8:42= 72E96C  .9:D C6DF=ED 7C@>E963C625E9@7E96567:?:E:@?@7M49:=5N:?$( 3
!@C6I2>A=6 DF49 2 49:=5 4@F=5 36 4@?D:56C65 2 DE6A49:=5 H9:49 C6BF:C6D E92E E96 49:=5 925 ?@E C624965 E96 286 @7 6:89E66? J62CD 2E E96 E:>6 E96 >2CC:286 4C62E:?8 E96 DE2EFD @7 DE6A49:=5 @44FCC65 H96E96C @C ?@E 3@C? @FE @7 H65=@4< 2?5 E96C67@C6BF2=:7J2D249:=5F?56C$( 3
 
 


3
  * )E96C 567:?:E:@?D @7 M49:=5N DF49 2D DE6A49:=5 @C 25@AE65 49:=5 >2J 2=D@ 4C62E6 2 BF2=:7J:?8 C6=2E:@?D9:A :? 42D6D H96C6 E96 A6E:E:@?6C :D ?@E 2 3:@=@8:42=A2C6?E 2494:C4F>DE2?46>FDE36C6G:6H65@?242D63J42D6 32D:D E92E H:== @7E6? :?G@=G6 ?@E @?=J /- 3FE 7@C6:8? =2HD 2?5 A@E6?E:2==J :?E6C?2E:@?2= 4@?G6?E:@?D A2CE:4F=2C=J :7 E96C6 :D 2 3:@=@8:42= A2C6?E H9@ @3;64ED E@ 9:D @C 96C 49:=5 8@:?8 E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D 2D E96 A6E:E:@?6COD 49:=5 *@DE D9@F=5 D66< 2? 25G:D@CJ @A:?:@? 7C@> /-$- G:2 0)! :7 E96C6 :D 2?J BF6DE:@? 2D E@ H96E96C 2? $ 36?67:4:2CJ BF2=:7:6D 2D E96 A6E:E:@?6COD 49:=5 @C :7 E96C6 :D 2? @3;64E:@? 3J E96 3:@=@8:42= A2C6?E E@ E96 49:=5OD :>>:8C2E:@? E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D 

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
&0)$%#   

4
  * .96 36?67:4:2CJ :D ?@E 6=:8:3=6 E@ 56C:G6 DE2EFD :7

:
     * #6D96 :D 2? 25@AE65 49:=5 H9@D6 25@AE:@? E@@< A=246 27E6C E96 286 @7  @C H9@ 92D ?@E 366? :? E96 =682= 4FDE@5J @7 2?5 =:G:?8 H:E9 E9625@AE:G6A2C6?E D
7@C2E=62DEEH@J62CD E96C6:D2?6I46AE:@?E@ E96  J62C C6D:56?46 C6BF:C6>6?E 7@C 46CE2:? 49:=5C6? H9@ 92G6 366? 32EE6C65@CDF3;64E65E@6IEC6>64CF6=EJ
-66$( 3
 
 
@C

::
    * #6D96 :D 2 DE6A49:=5 7C@> 2 >2CC:286 E92E @44FCC65 27E6C E96 49:=5 H2DJ62CD@=5-66$( 3
 
 


!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 $%#   


* 3320A<35691(A.AB@%?<A20A6<;0A(%<; 2;23606.?62@

2
*.969:=5-E2EFD*C@E64E:@?4E -*
 *F3=:4&2H-E2EFE6  67764E:G6 F8FDE  
 2==@HD D@>6 49:=5C6? C6249:?8 E96 286 @7  E@ 4@?E:?F6 36:?8 4=2DD:7:65 2D 2 M49:=5N :? @C56C E@ 56C:G6 6=:8:3:=:EJ 7@C 2DJ=F> @C C67F866 DE2EFD 7C@> 2 A2C6?E  .9:D AC@G:D:@? 4@?E:?F6D E@ AC@E64E E96 36?67:4:2CJ E9C@F89 2AAC@G2= @7 E96 !@C> $ F?E:= 96 @C D96 6?E6CD E96 /- 2D 2 56C:G2E:G6 2DJ=66 @C C67F866  .96 -* 2AA=:6D :7 E96 49:=5 H2D F?56C  H96?

:
* !@C0
.96AC:?4:A2=2AA=:42?E7:=659:D96C$AA=:42E:@?7@C DJ=F> 2?5 1:E99@=5:?8 @7 ,6>@G2= @C

::
* !@C0
.96AC:?4:A2=2AA=:42?EH2D7:CDE:?E6CG:6H653J/-$E96 /-$- :?E6CG:6H 52E6 2D :?5:42E65 :? 1,*- :D FD65 E@ 42=4F=2E6 -* 6=:8:3:=:EJ 7@C 0 36?67:4:2C:6D 2D E96C6 :D ?@ 7@C>2= $ ,68:DEC2E:@? 7@C =2DD:7:42E:@? 2D ,67F866 7:=:?8 52E6 :? C67F866 AC@46DD:?8
 2?5

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 15 of 19
:::
*.9649:=5H2D=:DE65@?E96$@C$ ,68:DEC2E:@?7@C =2DD:7:42E:@? 2D ,67F866
 2D 2AAC@AC:2E6 2?5 E96 49:=5 :D F?>2CC:65 @C

:G
   * .96 49:=5 H2D ?@E :?4=F565 :? 9:D96C A2C6?EOD C67F866 @C 2DJ=F> 2AA=:42E:@? 3FE E96 49:=5 H2D F?56C  H96? 9:D96C A2C6?E 7:=65 E96 $  2?5 E96 49:=5 :D F?>2CC:65

3
  * 9:=5C6? H9@ EFC?65  J62CD @7 286 AC:@C E@ F8FDE   2C6 ?@E 4@G6C65 3J E96 -* F?=6DD 6:E96C E96 !@C> $ @C E96 A6E:E:@?6CD !@C> $ @C $ H2D A6?5:?8 @? E92E 52E6  $7 E96 !@C> $ H2D 2AAC@G65 AC:@C E@ F8FDE   3FE E96 36?67:4:2C:6D 925 ?@E J6E 366? :DDF65 5@4F>6?E2E:@? E@ EC2G6= E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D E96 7@C> :D DE:== 4@?D:56C65 E@ 36 A6?5:?8

4
  * $7 2 49:=5 >2CC:6D 27E6C E96 $ H2D 7:=65 H:E9 /-$- 6=:8:3:=:EJ 7@C -* AC@E64E:@? 6?5D 3FE 2 DF3D6BF6?E 5:G@C46 367@C6 E96 36?67:4:2CJ EC2G6=D E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D 42? >2<6 E96 :?5:G:5F2= 6=:8:3=6 @?46 7@C 0 @C 0 DE2EFD  .96 :?E6?E @7 @?8C6DD H2D 7@C -* E@ 36 2>6=:@C2E:G6 2?5 E9FD :E :D =:36C2==J 4@?DECF65  !@C 6I2>A=6

:
     * $7 2 36?67:4:2CJ H2D F?>2CC:65 2?5 F?56C  2E E96 E:>6 @7 E96 $  7:=:?8 2?5 25;F5:42E:@? D96 @C 96 :D 6=:8:3=6 7@C -* AC@E64E:@?

::
    * $7 96 @C D96 EFC?D  2?5 >2CC:6D 367@C6 E96 4@?DF=2C :?E6CG:6H D96 @C 96 =@D6D -* AC@E64E:@?  #@H6G6C :7 96 @C D96 5:G@C46D 367@C6 E96 :?E6CG:6H D96 @C 96 :D 282:? 6=:8:3=6 7@C -* AC@E64E:@? 2?5 $ 36?67:ED

5
  * !@C 4@>A=6E6 8F:52?46 @? 2AA=J:?8 E96 -* E@ 0 AC@46DD:?8 D66 E96 7@==@H:?8 /-$- >6>@C2?52 3@E9 2G2:=23=6 2E /-$- H63D:E6

:
     * /- :E:K6?D9:A 2?5 $>>:8C2E:@? -6CG:46 '6>@C2?5F> *C@46DD:?8 6C:G2E:G6 ,67F866D 2?5 DJ=66D F?56C E96 9:=5 -E2EFD *C@E64E:@? 4E #+$)  52E65 %F=J   2?5

::
    * /- :E:K6?D9:A 2?5 $>>:8C2E:@? -6CG:46 '6>@C2?5F> .96 9:=5 -E2EFD *C@E64E:@? 4E  9:=5C6? @7 DJ=66D 2?5 ,67F866D #1)*,  52E65 F8FDE  

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 $%#   &0) 22*0).8 
 $%#   


* ".??6.42<356912;23606.?F%?6<?A<)?.C29

2
  * @?D:DE6?E H:E9 AC@465FC6D 7@C :>>:8C2?E G:D2 56C:G2E:G6D F?>2CC:65 49:=5C6? 2AAC@G65 2D 36?67:4:2C:6D @7 !@C> $ A6E:E:@?D =@D6 6=:8:3:=:EJ :7 E96J >2CCJ 27E6C 2AAC@G2= @7 E96:C EC2G6= 2FE9@C:K2E:@? 3FE AC:@C E@ 2CC:G2= :? E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D  !@C E9:D C62D@? $ 49:=5 36?67:4:2C:6D 2865  2?5 @=56C 2C6 C6BF:C65 E@ D:8? 2 (@E:46 @? *C66A2CEFC6 '2CC:286  64=2C2E:@? 2E :?E6CG:6H E@ 277:C> E96J 2C6 F?>2CC:65 2?5 F?56CDE2?5 E96J 42? ?@ =@?86C 56C:G6 DE2EFD 7C@> E96:C A6E:E:@?:?8 A2C6?E :7 E96J >2CCJ 367@C6 2CC:G:?8 :? E96 /?:E65-E2E6D D66!'A2C28C2A92 
 8



3
  * #@H6G6C :7 E96 >2CC:65 49:=5 DF3D6BF6?E=J 5:G@C46D 367@C6 EC2G6=:?8 E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D 96 @C D96 D9@F=5 36 4@?D:56C65 6=:8:3=6 :?4=F5:?8 2?J 2AA=:423:=:EJ @7 E96 -* 2D :7 E96 >2CC:286 925 ?@E @44FCC65  *6C $(  2
 
E96E6C>MF?>2CC:65NH96?FD65:?C676C6?46E@2?J:?5:G:5F2=

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 16 of 19
2D @7 2?J E:>6 >62?D 2? :?5:G:5F2= H9@ 2E DF49 E:>6 :D ?@E >2CC:65 H96E96C @C ?@E AC6G:@FD=J >2CC:65  D DF49 2 49:=5 >FDE 36 F?>2CC:65 H96? 96@CD96MD66<DN :?AC6D6?EE6?D6
E@244@>A2?J@C7@==@HE@;@:??6H $ 5@6D ?@E ?665 E@ 36 7:=65 E96 AC6G:@FD=J 2AAC@G65 $ >2J DE:== 36 FD65

4
* E.:=92@

:
     * $7 2 36?67:4:2CJ 49:=5 >2CC:65 27E6C E96 $ H2D 7:=65 2?5 5:G@C465 367@C6 7:?2= 25;F5:42E:@? @7 E96 $ @C EC2G6= E@ E96 /?:E65 -E2E6D E92E 36?67:4:2CJ :D 6=:8:3=6 7@C $ 36?67:ED

::
    * $7 E96 36?67:4:2CJ 49:=5 H2D >2CC:65 2?5 5:G@C465 367@C6 E96 $ H2D 6G6? 7:=65 E92E 36?67:4:2CJ :D 6=:8:3=6 7@C $ 36?67:ED

:::
    * $7 E96 36?67:4:2CJ 49:=5 H2D >2CC:65 2E E96 E:>6 E96 AC:?4:A2= H2D 8C2?E65 2DJ=F> @C 25>:EE65 2D 2 C67F866 @C 2E E96 E:>6 2? $ H2D 7:=65 @? E92E 36?67:4:2CJOD 3692=7 6G6? :7 E96 36?67:4:2CJ DF3D6BF6?E=J 5:G@C465 E92E :?5:G:5F2= :D ?@E 6=:8:3=6 7@C $ 36?67:ED  -66  !,  3
2?5!, 4
D9@H:?8E92EE96A2C6?E49:=5 C6=2E:@?D9:A >FDE 92G6 6I:DE65 2E E96 E:>6 @7 E96 A6E:E:@?6COD 2DJ=F> 8C2?E @C C67F866 25>:DD:@? 2?5 M2E E96 E:>6 @7 7:=:?8N E96 $


!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
&0)$%#   

7  * $A52? .:696.9 '29.A6<;@56=@   A2C6?E D:DE6C 3C@E96C 8C2?5A2C6?E 8C2?549:=5 F?4=6 2F?E ?6A96H ?:646 4@FD:? @C :?=2H 5@6D ?@E 92G6 2 BF2=:7J:?8 C6=2E:@?D9:A 2?5 :D ?@E 6=:8:3=6 7@C 00 DE2EFD  $? 46CE2:? 4:C4F>DE2?46D H96C6 2? :?5:G:5F2= 5@6D ?@E 92G6 E96 C6BF:D:E6 C6=2E:@?D9:A E@ E96 A6E:E:@?6C :? @C56C E@ BF2=:7J7@C7@==@HE@;@:?36?67:ED9F>2?:E2C:2?A2C@=6>2J362?@AE:@? D66!'  7@C >@C6 :?7@C>2E:@? @? 9F>2?:E2C:2? A2C@=6


"
 *.?@;.1:6@@6/696A62@.;1.@2@3<? 2;6.93320A6;4++2;23606.?62@

$%#    !3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 '$%#   

2* ++.?@;.1:6@@6/696A62@2;6.9@ ;A?<1B0A6<;


  * $E :D E96 C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ @7 E96 4@?DF=2C @77:46C E@ 6=:4:E :?7@C>2E:@? A6CE2:?:?8 E@ 56C@82E@CJ :?7@C>2E:@? E@ 56E6C>:?6 :7 E96 36?67:4:2CJ :D 32CC65 @C :?25>:DD:3=6


  *;.C.69./92


  * *2C28C2A9 3 36=@H 255C6DD6D 2 C62D@? E@ ?@E 2AAC@G6 EC2G6= E92E 27764ED 3@E9 0 2?5 0 42D6D  #@H6G6C E96 32D6D 7@C ?@E 2AAC@G:?8 42D6D 7@C EC2G6= 86?6C2==J G2CJ 56A6?5:?8 @? H96E96C E96 42D6 :?G@=G6D 2 0 @C 0 36?67:4:2CJ L A2C28C2A9 4 AC@G:56D 2? @G6CG:6H @7 E96 2AA=:423:=:EJ @7 G2C:@FD 32CD 2?5 :?25>:DD:3:=:E:6D  -66 >@C6 56E2:=65 :?7@C>2E:@? :? A2C28C2A9 5 7@C :DDF6D :?G@=G:?8 0 36?67:4:2C:6D 2?5 A2C28C2A9 6 7@C :DDF6D :?G@=G:?8 0 36?67:4:2C:6D

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
$%#   

3* %?2C6<B@?.;A<3@F9B:<?'23B422(A.AB@3<?++2;23606.?F G6? :7 2 00 36?67:4:2CJ :D 2 DA@FD6 @C F?>2CC:65 49:=5 @7 E96 A6E:E:@?6C 2?5

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 17 of 19

>66EDE964C:E6C:27@CC6=2E:@?D9:A6=:8:3:=:EJ D66!' 

E9636?67:4:2CJ:D ?@E 6=:8:3=6 E@ 56C:G6 DE2EFD :7 96D96 H2D AC6G:@FD=J 8C2?E65 2DJ=F> @C C67F866 DE2EFD D66$( 4
 
 
2?5$( 3
 
 



!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 &$%#   

4  *;.C.69./92 


  *;.C.69./92 

2
  *;.C.69./92

3
  *;.C.69./92


  * -66  !'  7@C 86?6C2= :?7@C>2E:@? @? AC@46DD:?8 00 42D6D H9:49 >2J :?G@=G6 32CD @C :?25>:DD:3:=:E:6D

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
$%#   

5 *;.C.69./92


  *;.C.69./92

2
  *;.C.69./92

3
  *;.C.69./92 

:
     *;.C.69./92 

::
    *;.C.69./92

4
  *;.C.69./92

5
  *;.C.69./92

6
  *;.C.69./92

7
   *;.C.69./92

8
  *;.C.69./92

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 &2&35.&/$%#    &0)22*0).8 
$%#   


  *;.C.69./92

!3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 &2&35.&/'2&35.&/()$%#   


*;.C.69./92

2
  *;.C.69./92 

3
  *;.C.69./92

:
     *;.C.69./92

::
    *;.C.69./92

:::
    *;.C.69./92 

:G
   *;.C.69./92 

G
    *;.C.69./92

G:
   *;.C.69./92

G::
   *;.C.69./92

4
 *;.C.69./92
.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 18 of 19

:
     *;.C.69./92  ::
    *;.C.69./92 :::
    *;.C.69./92 :G
   *;.C.69./92  G
    *;.C.69./92 G:
   *;.C.69./92 G::
   *;.C.69./92 G:::
  *;.C.69./92  :I
   *;.C.69./92 I
    *;.C.69./92  I:
   *;.C.69./92 I::
   *;.C.69./92 
* +'29623%?<C6@6<;@.96C62C6?@H2:G6CD2G2:=23=67@C02AA=:42?ED 
  * -66  !'  7@C :?DECF4E:@?D @? AC@46DD:?8 42D6D H9:49 >2J :?G@=G6 0 32CD @C 5:D4C6E:@?2CJ 56?:2=D 6 *;.C.69./92 !3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 $%#    
  *;.C.69./92 !3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 & ($%#    
  *;.C.69./92 2
  *;.C.69./92 :
     *;.C.69./92 ::
    *;.C.69./92 :::
    *;.C.69./92 3
  *;.C.69./92 :
     *;.C.69./92 ::
    *;.C.69./92 :::
    *;.C.69./92 :G
   *;.C.69./92 G
    *;.C.69./92 4
 *;.C.69./92 !3*7.164/1(&5.1022*0).8 
 &$%#   &0) 22*0).8 
)$%#    5
  *;.C.69./92 
  * -66  !'  7@C :?DECF4E:@?D @? AC@46DD:?8 42D6D H9:49 >2J :?G@=G6 032CD@C:?25>:DD:3:=:E:6D2?57@C:?7@C>2E:@?@?H2:G6CD7@C$( 2
 :?6=:8:3:=:E:6D

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/








Case: 3:17-cv-0011!2-w m'cD%o(c#u$men#$t ##: 32#(-1&5#F#i"led%:)03/%10"/1$7'Pag%e 19 of 19

.4423

,*0 34*4+ -15
!
!
! .40/




Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 12
(;+,%,788

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 12 (UKYL^ )YLPKLUIHJO

-YVT! :LU[! ;V! *J! :\IQLJ[!

+H]PSH @HTPSL[O . *0= #@HTPSL[O.+H]PSH'\ZKVQNV]% -YPKH` 4HYJO   ! 74 (UKYLP =YHIPL =PUJLU[ 3L]`" (UKYL^ )YLPKLUIHJO" 2L]PU + )LUPZO 9,! +VL ] ;Y\TW J] >+>0

/WWL IN\MZVWWV 5Z >ZIJQM <PM TWKI\QWV WN \PM QVLQ^QL]IT[ LM\MZUQVM[ _PMZM \PMa IZM XZWKM[[ML IVL QV\MZ^QM_ML 8TIQV\QNN XZW^QLML I 4MJIVM[M ILLZM[[ WV \PM 1 XM\Q\QWV[ _PMV NQTML QV 2]Ta )KKWZLQVO \W KW]V[MT \PM [XW][M IVL KPQTL IZM VW_ QV ;aZQI ?PMZM \PM LMZQ^I\Q^M[ IZM TWKI\ML INNMK\[ _PMV IVL _PMZM \PMa _QTT JM QV\MZ^QM_ML 8TMI[M XZW^QLM \PM K]ZZMV\ XPa[QKIT ILLZM[[ NWZ \PM [XW][M IVL KPQTL I[ [WWV I[ XW[[QJTM
<PIVS aW]
?GSORKZN - *G\ORG 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT 5LLOIK UL /SSOMXGZOUT 2OZOMGZOUT *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   

.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM CUIQT\W"I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWUE ;MV\" .ZQLIa 5IZKP   " )5 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $aLI^QTI(+1>=;,72/7>& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
)T\PW]OP _M LW VW\ [MM \PM ZMTM^IVKM _M KWVNQZU \PI\ W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNM IVL LI]OP\MZ ZMUIQV QV ;aZQI
*M[\ ZMOIZL[ )>
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"    


.I`"  Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 12
I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
.ZWU" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> CUIQT\W"AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^E ;MV\" <P]Z[LIa 5IZKP !  !" 85 <W" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM $I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
/WWL M^MVQVO KW]V[MT <PIVS aW] NWZ aW]Z MUIQT IVL ^WQKMUIQT 1 PI^M KWV\IK\ML IOMVKa KW]V[MT IVL IU I_IQ\QVO ZM[XWV[M[ 1 _QTT XZW^QLM ILLQ\QWVIT QVNWZUI\QWV I[ [WWV I[ 1 PI^M Q\ 1V WZLMZ \W WJ\IQV IKK]ZI\M QVNWZUI\QWV _W]TL KW]V[MT XTMI[M KWVNQZU \PI\ 8TIQV\QNNz[ [XW][M IVL KPQTL IZM K]ZZMV\Ta QV ;aZQI I[ _M PI^M KWVNTQK\QVO QVNWZUI\QWV \PI\ \PMa IZM XZM[MV\Ta QV 4MJIVWV +WVKMZVQVO aW]Z XZWXW[ML JZQMNQVO [KPML]TM \PM /W^MZVUMV\ LMKTQVM[ \W [\QX]TI\M \W \PM M`XMLQ\ML JZQMNQVO []OOM[\ML Ja KW]V[MT
<PIVS aW]
?GSORKZN - *G\ORG 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT 5LLOIK UL /SSOMXGZOUT 2OZOMGZOUT *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   
.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM CUIQT\W"I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWUE ;MV\" <P]Z[LIa 5IZKP !  " 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $aLI^QTI(+1>=;,72/7>& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1 1UXWZ\IVKM" 0QOP
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
1 _ZQ\M \W NWTTW_ ]X WV Ua MUIQT[ JMTW_ IVL \PM ^WQKMUIQT[ 1 TMN\ \WLIa IVL aM[\MZLIa
AW] KIV ZMIKP UM ^QI MUIQT WZ Ja KITTQVO     1 PWXM \W PMIZ NZWU aW] [WWV


<PIVS aW] Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 12
)>
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM ;MV\" ?MLVM[LIa 5IZKP    "! 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1 1UXWZ\IVKM" 0QOP
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
1 _ZQ\M \W NWTTW_ ]X WV Ua MIZTQMZ ^WQKMUIQT IVL MUIQT ?M _IV\ML \W TM\ aW] SVW_ \PI\ QN _M LW VW\ PMIZ NZWU aW] _M QV\MVL \W NQTM XIXMZ[ WV WZ JMNWZM "!XU +;< WV <P]Z[LIa 5IZKP !  [MMSQVO I <:7 IVLWZ I XZMTQUQVIZa QVR]VK\QWV ?M VW\M \PI\ O]QLIVKM NZWU \PM ;\I\M ,MXIZ\UMV\ [\I\M[ \PI\ \PM VM_ -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ LWM[ INNMK\ 1 IXXTQKI\QWV[ IVL _QTT XZWKMML WV \PI\ JI[Q[ ]VTM[[ _M PMIZ W\PMZ_Q[M NZWU aW]
1V \PI\ ZM[XMK\ XTMI[M IL^Q[M _PM\PMZ \PM /W^MZVUMV\ Q[ _QTTQVO \W [\QX]TI\M []JRMK\ \W \PM +W]Z\z[ IXXZW^IT \W \PM NWTTW_QVO JZQMNQVO IVL PMIZQVO [KPML]TM QV KWVVMK\QWV _Q\P W]Z NWZ\PKWUQVO UW\QWV NWZ QVR]VK\Q^M ZMTQMN"
I 8TIQV\QNN _QTT NQTM Q\[ IUMVLML KWUXTIQV\ IVL Q\[ UW^QVO XIXMZ[ VW TI\MZ \PIV "! 85 +;< <P]Z[LIa 5IZKP ! 
J /W^MZVUMV\ UIa NQTM Q\[ WXXW[Q\QWV XIXMZ[ VW TI\MZ \PIV " 85 +;< WV 5WVLIa 5IZKP   K 8TIQV\QNN _QTT NQTM Q\[ ZMXTa XIXMZ[ VW TI\MZ \PIV " 85 +;< <]M[LIa 5IZKP   L ;]JRMK\ \W \PM +W]Z\z[ I^IQTIJQTQ\a \PM 8IZ\QM[ _QTT JM XZMXIZML \W IXXMIZ I\ I \MTMXPWVQK KWVNMZMVKM I\ \PM
+W]Z\z[ KWV^MVQMVKM \PM UWZVQVO WN ?MLVM[LIa 5IZKP  
1 PWXM \W PMIZ NZWU aW] [PWZ\Ta
*M[\ ZMOIZL[ )>
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ


6M_ AWZS 6ACase:!3:17-cv-00112-wmc
<MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU

Document #: 32-16

Filed: 03/10/17

Page 5 of 12

+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU

.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM ;MV\" 5WVLIa 5IZKP   !" 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
?M _ZQ\M ZMOIZLQVO \PM 8ZM[QLMV\z[ 5IZKP   -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ MV\Q\TML {-`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ 8ZW\MK\QVO <PM 6I\QWV .ZWU .WZMQOV <MZZWZQ[\ -V\Za 1V\W <PM =VQ\ML ;\I\M[| {-`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ|
?M ]VLMZ[\IVL \PI\ XZQWZ \W Q[[]IVKM WN \PM -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ =;+1; PIL XZWKM[[ML W]Z KTQMV\z[ LMZQ^I\Q^M I[aT]U XM\Q\QWV[ IVL \PI\ \PM XM\Q\QWV[ _MZM JMQVO \ZIV[NMZZML \W \PM =; ,MXIZ\UMV\ WN ;\I\M NWZ IV M`XMLQ\ML ZM^QM_ \W JM KWUXTM\ML I\ \PM =; -UJI[[a QV )UUIV 2WZLIV
?M VW_ [MMS KTIZQ\a IJW]\ \PM QUXIK\ WN \PM -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ WV W]Z KTQMV\ IVL PQ[ _QNM IVL KPQTL IVL ZMY]M[\ \PI\ aW] QVNWZU ][ WN \PM /W^MZVUMV\z[ XW[Q\QWV WV \PM NWTTW_QVO"
 8TMI[M [\I\M _PM\PMZ \PM /W^MZVUMV\ _QTT KWV\QV]M \W XZWKM[[ LMZQ^I\Q^M I[aT]U XM\Q\QWV[ NWZ JMVMNQKQIZQM[ ZM[QLQVO QV ;aZQI WVKM \PM VM_ -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ \ISM[ MNNMK\
 8TMI[M [\I\M _PM\PMZ \PM VM_ -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ IXXTQM[ \W \PM XMVLQVO LMZQ^I\Q^M XM\Q\QWV[ WZ W\PMZ_Q[M INNMK\[ W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNMz[ IVL LI]OP\MZz[ IJQTQ\a \W MV\MZ \PM =VQ\ML ;\I\M[ QV IVa UIVVMZ QVKT]LQVO J]\ VW\ TQUQ\ML \W Ja LMTIaQVO WZ JIZZQVO \PM /W^MZVUMV\ NZWU XZWKM[[QVO \PM IXXTQKI\QWV[ WZ LMTIaQVO WZ JIZZQVO \PM ,MXIZ\UMV\ WN ;\I\M NZWU QV\MZ^QM_QVO WZ Q[[]QVO \ZI^MT LWK]UMV\[ \W W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNM IVL LI]OP\MZ#
 1N \PM VM_ -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ LWM[ INNMK\ \PM XMVLQVO LMZQ^I\Q^M IXXTQKI\QWV[ WZ W\PMZ_Q[M INNMK\[ W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNMz[ IVL LI]OP\MZz[ IJQTQ\a \W MV\MZ \PM =VQ\ML ;\I\M[ QV IVa UIVVMZ XTMI[M QLMV\QNa _PQKP XZW^Q[QWV[ WN \PM -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ LWM[ [W# IVL
 1N \PM VM_ -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ LWM[ VW\ IXXTa \W WZ W\PMZ_Q[M INNMK\ W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNMz[ IVL LI]OP\MZz[ IJQTQ\a \W MV\MZ \PM =VQ\ML ;\I\M[ QV IVa UIVVMZ XTMI[M QLMV\QNa \PM XZW^Q[QWV[ WN \PM -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ \PI\ UISM \PQ[ KTMIZ
)[ _M PI^M VW\ML XZM^QW][Ta W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNM IVL LI]OP\MZ IZM QV OZI^M LIVOMZ IVL _M IZM KWUUQ\\ML \W I [_QN\ ZM[WT]\QWV WN \PQ[ UI\\MZ +WV[MY]MV\Ta _M I[S \PI\ aW] XTMI[M XZW^QLM IV[_MZ[ \W \PM NW]Z Y]M[\QWV[ IJW^M VW TI\MZ \PIV ?MLVM[LIa 5IZKP  
8TMI[M JM IL^Q[ML \PI\ OQ^MV \PM ]ZOMVKa WN \PQ[ UI\\MZ _M _QTT QV\MZXZM\ VWVZM[XWV[M Ja <P]Z[LIa I[ QVLQKI\QVO \PI\ \PM -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ _QTT INNMK\ W]Z KTQMV\z[ _QNMz[ IVL LI]OP\MZz[ IJQTQ\a \W MV\MZ \PM =VQ\ML ;\I\M[ IVL QV\MVL \W NQTM ILLQ\QWVIT XIXMZ[ QV KW]Z\ XZWUX\Ta \W ^QVLQKI\M W]Z KTQMV\z[ ZQOP\[ QV SMMXQVO _Q\P \PI\ ]VLMZ[\IVLQVO
<PIVS aW] ^MZa U]KP QV IL^IVKM NWZ aW]Z I\\MV\QWV \W \PQ[ XZM[[QVO UI\\MZ


)>

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 12

)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU

+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU

.ZWU" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> CUIQT\W"AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^E ;MV\" <]M[LIa .MJZ]IZa    !" 85 <W" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM $I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
/WWL M^MVQVO 5Z >ZIJQM 1 ZMKMQ^ML IV ]XLI\M NZWU Ua KTQMV\ \WLIa QVNWZUQVO \PI\ \PM 6MJZI[SI ;MZ^QKM +MV\MZ PI[ NQVQ[PML Q\[ XZWKM[[QVO WN \PM 1  XM\Q\QWV[ NWZ XTIQV\QNNz[ [XW][M IVL KPQTL <PM ,MXIZ\UMV\ WN ;\I\Mz[ 6I\QWVIT >Q[I +MV\MZ _I[ VW\QNQML \PI\ \PM XM\Q\QWV[ IZM JMQVO NWZ_IZLML NWZ \ZIV[UQ\\IT \W 8W[\ IJZWIL ?M ]VLMZ[\IVL \PI\ \PM ILR]LQKI\QWV _QTT JM KWUXTM\ML Ja =;+1; )UUIV
1 PI^M ZMKMQ^ML VW QVNWZUI\QWV QVLQKI\QVO \PI\ ,0; [MK]ZQ\a KPMKS[ IZM KWUXTM\M )LR]LQKI\QWV Q[ WVOWQVO IVL JMQVO XZWKM[[ML WV IV M`XMLQ\ML \QUMTQVM 1 _QTT [PIZM IVa ILLQ\QWVIT QVNWZUI\QWV I[ 1 ZMKMQ^M Q\
<PIVS aW]
?GSORKZN - *G\ORG 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT 5LLOIK UL /SSOMXGZOUT 2OZOMGZOUT *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   
.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM CUIQT\W"I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWUE ;MV\" <P]Z[LIa .MJZ]IZa   !" 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $aLI^QTI(+1>=;,72/7>& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1


Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 12
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
<PIVS aW] NWZ aW]Z XZWUX\ ZM[XWV[M
?M _ZQ\M _Q\P I NM_ NWTTW_]X Y]M[\QWV[ .QZ[\ XTMI[M TM\ ][ SVW_ _PM\PMZ aW] PI^M IV ]XLI\M KWVKMZVQVO _PM\PMZ 8TIQV\QNNz[ JMVMNQKQIZQM[ PI^M []KKM[[N]TTa KWUXTM\ML ,0;z[ [MK]ZQ\a ^M\\QVO ;MKWVL aW] [\I\M \PI\ =;+1; M[\QUI\M[  \W  LIa[ WN {\W\IT XZWKM[[QVO \QUM NWZ \PM XM\Q\QWV[| ;QVKM 8TIQV\QNNz[ XM\Q\QWV[ _MZM []JUQ\\ML _MTT W^MZ  LIa[ IOW QV 2]Ta XTMI[M XZW^QLM I LI\M ZIVOM NWZ I NQVIT LMKQ[QWV WV \PM XM\Q\QWV[ <PQZL XTMI[M XZW^QLM ][ _Q\P \PM TWKI\QWV WN \PM =;+1; WNNQKM _PMZM \PM XM\Q\QWV[ IZM K]ZZMV\Ta JMQVO XZWKM[[ML .W]Z\P _M I[S \PI\ aW] XZW^QLM I[ [WWV I[ XW[[QJTM _PI\ [\MX[ QN IVa ZMUIQV \W JM \ISMV XZQWZ \W I LMKQ[QWV WV \PM XM\Q\QWV[
:MTI\MLTa _M ]VLMZ[\IVL \PI\ _Q\PQV \PM TI[\ \_W LIa[ .ZMM ;aZQIV )ZUa NWZKM[ I\\IKSML \PM VMQOPJWZPWWL _PMZM W]Z KTQMV\z[ NIUQTa Q[ QV PQLQVO <PMa IZM QV ^MZa ZMIT LIVOMZ I\ \PQ[ ^MZa UWUMV\ ?M IXXZMKQI\M aW]Z KWV\QV]ML I\\MV\QWV \W \PQ[ [MV[Q\Q^M UI\\MZ
*M[\ ZMOIZL[ )>
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
.ZWU" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> CUIQT\W"AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^E ;MV\" ?MLVM[LIa .MJZ]IZa   " )5 <W" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM $I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
/WWL UWZVQVO 5Z >ZIJQM ?M IZM [\QTT KPMKSQVO WV aW]Z Y]M[\QWV ZMOIZLQVO [MK]ZQ\a KPMKS[ ?M KIV PW_M^MZ [PIZM \PI\ =;+1; M[\QUI\M[ \PM \W\IT XZWKM[[QVO \QUM NWZ \PM XM\Q\QWV[ _QTT JM JM\_MMV  LIa[ LMXMVLQVO WV _PM\PMZ I :MY]M[\ NWZ -^QLMVKM :.- Q[ Q[[]ML 1 _QTT [PIZM ILLQ\QWVIT QVNWZUI\QWV I[ Q\ JMKWUM[ I^IQTIJTM
<PIVS aW]
?GSORKZN - *G\ORG 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT


5LLOIK UL /SCSaOMsXeGZ:OU3T:127OZ-OcMGvZ-OU0T0112-wmc *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   

Document #: 32-16

Filed: 03/10/17

Page 8 of 12

.ZWU" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> ;MV\" <]M[LIa .MJZ]IZa   "! 85 <W" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM $I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
/WWL IN\MZVWWV 5Z >ZIJQM +WV[Q[\MV\ _Q\P \PM OW^MZVUMV\z[ NQTQVO WV .ZQLIa IVL W]Z LQ[K][[QWV _Q\P 2]LOM +WVTMa _M PI^M ITZMILa KWVNQZUML \PM XM\Q\QWV[ IZM JMQVO XZWKM[[ML WV IV M`XMLQ\ML JI[Q[ 1 _QTT QVY]QZM I[ \W \PM [MK]ZQ\a [KZMMVQVO IVL M`XMK\ML \QUMTQVM NWZ ILR]LQKI\QWV IT\PW]OP 1 IV\QKQXI\M \PM IOMVKa KIV WVTa XZW^QLM IV M[\QUI\M 1 _QTT XZW^QLM aW] _Q\P IV ]XLI\M I[ [WWV I[ 1 PI^M ILLQ\QWVIT QVNWZUI\QWV
<PIVS aW]
?GSORKZN - *G\ORG 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT 5LLOIK UL /SSOMXGZOUT 2OZOMGZOUT *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   

.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM CUIQT\W"I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWUE ;MV\" <]M[LIa .MJZ]IZa   " 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $aLI^QTI(+1>=;,72/7>& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU&# )VLZM_ *ZMQLMVJIKP $IJZMQLMVJIKP(P[OTTXKWU&# 3M^QV , *MVQ[P $3*MVQ[P(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
.WTTW_QVO \PM +W]Z\z[ QV[\Z]K\QWV \PI\ \PM XIZ\QM[ [PW]TL _WZS \WOM\PMZ _M _ZQ\M \W ZMY]M[\ IV ]XLI\M WV 8TIQV\QNNz[ LMZQ^I\Q^M I[aT]U IXXTQKI\QWV
1V aW]Z MUIQT WV <P]Z[LIa VQOP\ aW] QVLQKI\ML \PI\ aW] PIL [W NIZ {JMMV IJTM \W KWVNQZU ^MZa TQ\\TM| IJW]\ 8TIQV\QNNz[ XM\Q\QWV[ 7V .ZQLIa \PM /W^MZVUMV\ UILM KMZ\IQV ZMXZM[MV\I\QWV[ {CJEI[ML WV I XZMTQUQVIZa ZM^QM_| IJW]\ _PI\ {IXXMIZCMLE| \W JM \PM KI[M ;MM :M[XWV[M I\  8TMI[M KWVNQZU _PM\PMZ QV NIK\ 8TIQV\QNNz[ LMZQ^I\Q^M XM\Q\QWV[ IZM JMQVO XZWKM[[ML IVL _PMV aW] M`XMK\ \PM XM\Q\QWV[ \W JM LMKQLML 8TMI[M IT[W KWVNQZU _PM\PMZ _M IZM KWZZMK\ \PI\ 8TIQV\QNNz[ JMVMNQKQIZQM[ PI^M ITZMILa []KKM[[N]TTa KWUXTM\ML ,0;z[ [MK]ZQ\a ^M\\QVO .QVITTa QN aW] PI^M IVa W\PMZ QVNWZUI\QWV ZMOIZLQVO \PM [\I\][ WN \PM XM\Q\QWV[ _M I[S \PI\ aW] XTMI[M [PIZM \PI\ _Q\P ][ I[ _MTT


Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 9 of 12
/Q^MV \PM ]ZOMVKa WN \PM [Q\]I\QWV _M IXXZMKQI\M aW]Z KWWXMZI\QWV
*M[\ ZMOIZL[ )>
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
.ZWU" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> CUIQT\W"AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^E ;MV\" .ZQLIa .MJZ]IZa   " 85 <W" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM $I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :-" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
<PIVS aW] 5Z >ZIJQM ?M IZM I^IQTIJTM VW_ 1 KIV JM ZMIKPML I\ 
<PIVS[ AIUQ
.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM CUIQT\W"I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWUE ;MV\" .ZQLIa .MJZ]IZa   " 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $aLI^QTI(+1>=;,72/7>& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :M" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
<PM KW]Z\ ZMY]M[\ML IV QUUMLQI\M KITT JIKS
8TMI[M IL^Q[M _PM\PMZ _M [PW]TL QVNWZU \PM +W]Z\ \PI\ aW] IZM ]VI^IQTIJTM ]V\QT \PMV
)>
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU


Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 32-16 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 10 of 12
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
8M  NMJ  TI " ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^& I [KZQ["
/WWL IN\MZVWWV 5Z >ZIJQM ?M KIV JM I^IQTIJTM NWZ I KITT I\ XU MI[\MZV
<PIVS aW] AIUQ
?GSORKZN - *G\ORG 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT 5LLOIK UL /SSOMXGZOUT 2OZOMGZOUT *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   
.ZWU" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM CUIQT\W"I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWUE ;MV\" .ZQLIa .MJZ]IZa   " 85 <W" ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $aLI^QTI(+1>=;,72/7>& +K" >QVKMV\ 4M^a $^TM^a(P[OTTXKWU& ;]JRMK\" :M" ,WM ^ <Z]UX K^ ?,?1
,MIZ 5[ ,I^QTI
)ZM aW] I^IQTIJTM NWZ I KITT _Q\P \PM +W]Z\'
2]LOM +WVTMa _W]TL TQSM \W [XMIS _Q\P ][
<PIVS[ ^MZa U]KP )^
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[


XZWPCQJaQ\sMeL: 13N a:1W]7-JcMvTQ-M0^M01\P1I2\ a-wW]mPcI^MDZMoKMcQu^MmLe\PnQ[t M#U: I3Q2T Q-V1M6ZZWZF iXleTMdI[:M0V3W/\1QN0a /\1PM7[MPVLaMgZ e 11 of 12
QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
8M  NMJ  TI !" )VLZMQ >ZIJQM $I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU& I [KZQ["
'HDU 0V 'DYLOD
:H FDQQRW FRQVHQW WR DQ H[WHQVLRQ XQGHU WKHVH FLUFXPVWDQFHV SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ OLJKW RI WKH LUUHSDUDEOH KDUP IXUWKHU GHOD\ SRVHV WR RXU FOLHQW DQG KLV IDPLO\
5HJDUGV
$9
)VLZMQ >ZIJQM 0WT_MTT ;P][\MZ  /WTLJMZO 448  ;M^MV\P )^MV]M \P .TWWZ 6M_ AWZS 6A ! <MT"     .I`"   I^ZIJQM(P[OTTXKWU
+76.1,-6<1)41<A ?):616/" <PQ[ MUIQT UIa KWV\IQV XZQ^QTMOML WZ KWVNQLMV\QIT QVNWZUI\QWV IVL Q[ NWZ \PM [WTM ][M WN \PM QV\MVLML ZMKQXQMV\[ )Va ]VI]\PWZQbML ][M WZ LQ[KTW[]ZM WN \PQ[ KWUU]VQKI\QWV Q[ XZWPQJQ\ML 1N aW] JMTQM^M \PI\ aW] PI^M ZMKMQ^ML \PQ[ MUIQT QV MZZWZ XTMI[M VW\QNa \PM [MVLMZ QUUMLQI\MTa IVL LMTM\M Q\ NZWU aW]Z [a[\MU
8M  NMJ  TI " ,I^QTI AIUQTM\P / +1> $AIUQTM\P/,I^QTI(][LWROW^& I [KZQ["
/WWL M^MVQVO 5Z >ZIJQM )[ aW] IZM I_IZM \PM OW^MZVUMV\z[ ZM[XWV[M \W \PM +W]Z\z[ 7ZLMZ WN .MJZ]IZa   Q[ L]M I\ VWWV KMV\ZIT WV .ZQLIa .MJZ]IZa   ?M IZM [\QTT _IQ\QVO \W ZMKMQ^M XTIQV\QNNz[ ITQMV NQTM IVL PI^M JMMV IJTM \W KWVNQZU ^MZa TQ\\TM IJW]\ \PM XMVLQVO 1 XM\Q\QWV[ )LLQ\QWVITTa OQ^MV ZMKMV\ LM^MTWXUMV\[ ,MNMVLIV\[ ]VLMZ[\IVL \PM 2IV]IZa   -`MK]\Q^M 7ZLMZ _QTT JM ZMXTIKML QV \PM VMIZ N]\]ZM IVL _M IZM ]VIJTM \W N]TTa ZM[XWVL \W \PM +W]Z\z[ Y]M[\QWV[ I\ \PQ[ \QUM )KKWZLQVOTa _M IZM [MMSQVO I UWLM[\ WVM_MMS M`\MV[QWV WN \QUM \W NQTM I ZM[XWV[M \W \PM +W]Z\z[ 7ZLMZ ?W]TL aW] XTMI[M XZW^QLM UM _Q\P 8TIQV\QNNz[ XW[Q\QWV WV \PM OW^MZVUMV\z[ ZMY]M[\ I\ aW]Z MIZTQM[\ KWV^MVQMVKM
<PIVS aW] AIUQ


Case: 3:17?-GcSvO-RK0Z0N1-12*-wG\mORGc Document #: 32-16 9KTOUX 2OZOMGZOUT )U[TYKR ;TOZKJ 9ZGZKY *KVGXZSKTZ UL 0[YZOIK )O\OR *O\OYOUT 5LLOIK UL /SSOMXGZOUT 2OZOMGZOUT *OYZXOIZ )U[XZ 9KIZOUT 65 (U^  (KT ,XGTQROT 9ZGZOUT =GYNOTMZUT *)   

Filed: 03/10/17

Page 12 of 12



Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 3 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 4 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 5 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 6 of 7

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 33 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 7 of 7

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 34 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff, v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, JOHN F. KELLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, LORI SCIALABBA, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, REX W. TILLERSON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER 17-cv-112-wmc

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s renewed application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Dkt. #29.) After reviewing plaintiff’s submissions and conducting a brief hearing with the parties, the court concludes that plaintiff has presented some likelihood of success on the merits and that he is at great risk of suffering irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order is denied. See Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ezell v. City of Chi., 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted)).
The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order issued on March 6, 2017 -- for example, the government points to a new waiver provision. As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts. See Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017); Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). Moreover, given the daily threat to the lives of

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 34 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2
plaintiff’s wife and child remaining in Aleppo, Syria, the court further finds a significant risk of irreparable harm. Finally, while defendants object to the entry of temporary injunctive relief, they argue during the hearing that the executive order may not even apply to plaintiff’s asylee relative petition, thus ameliorating any harm to the government, or at least any harm caused by the brief period covered by this temporary restraining order. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (dkt. #29) is GRANTED IN
PART AND RESERVED IN PART. The motion for temporary restraining order is granted, and the motion for preliminary injunction is reserved pending further briefing and hearing. 2) Defendants are enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 13780 (Mar. 6, 2017) as it pertains to plaintiff and his refugee/asylee relative petitions for his wife and child. 3) Defendants’ response to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is due on or before March 16, 2017; plaintiff’s reply is due by noon on March 20, 2017. 4) The court will hold an in person hearing on March 21, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., to address the merits of the motion for preliminary injunction. Entered this 10th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge
2

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112

-against-

Chief Judge William M. Conley

DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

SECOND DECLARATION OF ANDREW B. BREIDENBACH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Andrew B. Breidenbach, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am an associate with the law firm of Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff in this action. The facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 2. Attached as Exhibit FF1 hereto is a true and correct copy of Executive Order

1 On February 14, 2017, I submitted the Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 13. The exhibit names in this Second Declaration continue sequentially from those submitted with my first Declaration.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 2 of 7
13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, dated March 6, 2017 (the “Executive Order”), which I obtained at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (last accessed March 10, 2017).
3. Attached as Exhibit GG hereto is a true and correct copy of a “tweet” issued by President Trump’s official Twitter account on January 30, 2017, which I obtained at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 (last accessed March 10, 2017).
4. A video titled “Watch: White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer Joins Forum at George Washington University,” dated January 31, 2017, is available at http://thenet24h.com/2611014/watch-white-house-press-secretary-sean-spicer-joins-forumgeorge-washington-university (last accessed March 10, 2017).
5. Attached as Exhibit HH hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Kevin Liptak for CNN Politics, titled “Trump: I wanted month delay before travel ban, was told no,” dated February 9, 2017, which I obtained at http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-delay/ (last accessed March 10, 2017). The article quotes President Trump as stating, “The law enforcement people said to me, ‘Oh you can’t give a notice[.]’ . . . They said you can’t do that because then people are gonna pour in before the toughness.”
6. Attached as Exhibit II hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Taylor Link for Salon, dated February 22, 2017, titled “Stephen Miller admits the new executive order on immigration ban is same as the old,” which I obtained at http://www.salon.com/2017/02/22/stephen-miller-admits-the-new-executive-order-on-
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 3 of 7
immigration-ban-is-same-as-the-old/ (last accessed March 10, 2017). At a town hall hosted by Fox News, White House adviser Stephen Miller explained that “[o]ne of the big differences that you are going to see in the executive order is that it is going to be responsive to the judicial ruling which didn’t exist previously. . . . And so these are mostly minor, technical differences. Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country.”
7. Attached as Exhibit JJ hereto is a true and correct copy of a document that, according to media reports, is a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) memorandum titled Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator or Terrorist Threat to the United States, which I obtained at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trms-exclusive-dhs-documentundermines-trump-case-travel-ban (last accessed March 10, 2017). The report concludes, among other things, that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.” Moreover, the report states that of the eighty-two U.S. residents DHS has identified as having been involved in terrorism-related offenses since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, not one came from Syria.
8. Attached as Exhibit KK hereto is a true and correct copy of a document that, according to media reports, is a report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence Analysis, titled Intelligence Assessment: Most Foreign-born, US-based Violent Extremists Radicalized after Entering Homeland; Opportunities for Tailed CVE Programs Exist, dated March 1, 2017, which I obtained at http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/homelandsecurity-assessment-radicalization/. The report concludes, among other things, that “most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns.”
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 4 of 7
9. Attached as Exhibit LL hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Laura Jarrett, Ariane de Vogue and Jeremy Diamond for CNN Politics, titled “Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech,” dated March 1, 2017, which I obtained at http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/ (last accessed March 10, 2017). The article states that the Trump Administration decided to delay the signing of the Executive Order: “Signing the executive order Wednesday, as originally indicated by the White House, would have undercut the favorable coverage [of President Trump’s first address to Congress]. The [White House] official didn't deny the positive reception was part of the administration’s calculus in pushing back the travel ban announcement. ‘We want the (executive order) to have its own ‘moment,’ the official said.’”
10. Attached as Exhibit MM hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Greg Sargent for The Washington Post, titled “In leaked documents, the case for Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ takes another huge hit,” dated March 5, 2017 (last accessed March 10, 2017).
11. Attached as Exhibit NN hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Philip Ricker, Robert Acosta, and Ashley Parker for The Washington Post, titled “Inside Trump’s fury: The president rages at leaks, setbacks and accusations,” dated March 5, 2017, which I obtained at https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leakeddocument-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.40fefede678d (last accessed March 10, 2017).
12. Attached as Exhibit OO hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Matthew Yglesias for Vox, titled “Report: Trump aides cheer up a moody president by talking about his travel ban,” dated March 6, 2017, which I obtained at http://www.vox.com/policy-andpolitics/2017/3/6/14827338/trump-travel-ban-cheer (last accessed March 10, 2017). This article
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 5 of 7
explains “that the details [of the Executive Order] were hashed out over dinner, with the president’s chief political strategist in attendance but his national security adviser absent, at a lavish $200,000 initiation fee private beach club, with the purpose of brightening the president’s mood.”
13. Attached as Exhibit PP hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Elena Schor and Kyle Cheney for Politico, titled “GOP critics praise Trump’s tweaked travel ban,” dated March 6, 2017, which I obtained at http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donaldtrump-new-travel-ban-congress-republicans-reaction-235726 (last accessed March 10, 2017). The article quotes White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer as stating that “the principles of the executive order remain the same.”
14. Attached as Exhibit QQ hereto is a true and correct copy of a news article by Mark Joseph Stern for Slate, titled “In Fundraising Pitch, Trump Says His Not-a-Muslim Ban Will Fight ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism,’” dated March 6, 2017, which I obtained at http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/06/trump_says_his_not_a_muslim_ban_will_fig ht_radical_islamic_terrorism.html (last accessed March 10, 2017).
15. Attached as Exhibit RR hereto is a true and correct copy of an advisory memorandum created by the Trump Administration to help explain its revised Executive Order, titled Q&A: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States, which I obtained at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entryunited-states (last accessed March 10, 2017). The report provides: “Can the exception for refugee admission be used for Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (Form I-730) cases where a family member is requesting a beneficiary follow to join? No. Individuals who already have valid visas or travel documents that permit them to travel to the United States are exempt from
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 6 of 7
the Executive Order. To the extent that an individual does not yet have such documents, please contact the Department of State.”
16. Attached as Exhibit SS hereto is a true and correct copy of an advisory memorandum created by the Trump Administration to help explain its revised Executive Order, titled Fact Sheet: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States, dated March 5, 2017, which I obtained at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/fact-sheet-protectingnation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (last accessed March 10, 2017). The report provides that “[f]or the next 90 days, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who are outside the United States on the effective date of the order, do not currently have a valid visa on the effective date of this order, and did not have a valid visa at 5:00 eastern standard time on January 27, 2017, are not eligible to travel to the United States.”
17. Attached as Exhibit TT hereto is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Foreign Affairs Manual issued by the U.S. Department of States, 9 FAM § 205.5, which I obtained at https://fam.state.gov/Fam/FAM.aspx?ID=09FAM (last accessed March 10, 2017).
18. Attached as Exhibit UU hereto is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between Plaintiff’s counsel, including myself, and Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Yamileth Davila, spanning February 16, 2017 to March 9, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel responded to Ms. Davila’s last email by providing Plaintiff’s family’s address, which we have omitted from the exhibit for purposes of confidentiality.
19. In addition to the email correspondence described in Paragraph 19, my firm left Ms. Davila voicemails at 4:52 p.m. EST on March 8, 2017, 11:06 a.m. EST on March 9, 2017, and again on 2:29 p.m. EST on March 9, 2017.
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 37 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 7 of 7
Executed on March 10, 2017 in New York, New York. /s/ Andrew B. Breidenbach Andrew B. Breidenbach Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10019 (646) 837-5151 Attorney for Plaintiff
7

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary ofthe Department ofHomeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director ofthe U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112

Chief Judge William M. Conley

DECLARATION OFJIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIII

-

IN SUPPORT OF IDS

RENEWED APPLICATION FOR

A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

FILED UNDER SEAL

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) ss.:
COUNTY OF DANE )
• • • • • • • • • • • •• pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as follows: 1. I am the Plaintiff in this action and make this declaration on the basis of my own personal knowledge. 2. I affrrm that I have signed the following documents as "John Doe'' in the course of this litigation: Dkt. No.4, Dkt. No. 11, and the Declaration ofJohn Doe in Support of His Renewed Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. I reaffirm under penalty ofperjury that these documents are true and correct.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 2 of 3
3. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of documentation memorializing my initial March 24, 2014 asylum interview with U.S. border officials.
4. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of my March 25, 2014 hearing asylum interview with a USCIS Asylum Officer, during which 1explained the bases for my asylum claim.
5. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of the USCIS's March 27, 20 14 determination that I had established a basis for asylum.
6. Attached as Exhibit D hereto is a true and correct copy of my initial Application for Asylum and for Withholding for Removal, filed without assistance of counsel and filed April 16, 2014.
7. Attached as Exhibit E hereto is a true and correct copy of a denial of my request for expedited processing of my initial Application for Asylum and for Withholding for Removal, issued March 12,2015.
8. Attached as Exhibit F hereto is a true and correct copy of excerpts of my application for Humanitarian Parole filed on behalf of my wife and surviving daughter, dated August 11 , 2015. These excerpts include a declaration I filed in support ofthe application, as well as documentation regarding my son's death and the dangerous conditions my family seeks to escape.
9. Attached as Exhibit G hereto is a true and correct copy of my amended Application for Asylum and for Withholding for Removal, filed with assistance of counsel and filed October 6, 2015.
10. Attached as Exhibit H hereto is a true and correct copy ofthe U.S. Immigration Court's May 27, 20 16 ruling approving my amended Application for Asylum and for
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 3 of 3
Withholding for Removal and of my asylee identification card. 11. Attached as Exhibit I hereto is a true and correct copy of my Refugee/Asylee
Relative Petition filed July 5, 2016. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed: on this Lfl__th day ofMarch, 2017.

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-1 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
FILED UNDER SEAL

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-2 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT B
N

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-3 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-4 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-5 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-6 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-7 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-8 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 39-9 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 52 Filed: 04/28/17 Page 1 of 1

Vincent Levy
(646) 837-5120
vlevy@hsgllp.com

750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10019 Tel: (646) 837-5151 Fax: (646) 837-5150 www.hsgllp.com
April 28, 2017

The Honorable William M. Conley United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin 120 N. Henry Street, Room 320 Madison, WI 53703

Dear Chief Judge Conley,
As the Court is aware, we represent Plaintiff John Doe in Doe v. Trump, 17-cv-112. We write to advise the Court that our client’s wife and daughter were granted derivative asylum status, and entered the United States this week. After three years apart, the family is now reunited in Madison. In light of this development, we withdraw the pending motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 29) and we will shortly be filing a notice voluntarily dismissing the action.
On behalf of our client, we wish to express our sincerest appreciation for the Court’s expeditious consideration of his complaint and motions seeking interim relief.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Vincent Levy Vincent Levy

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 53 Filed: 04/28/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the United States of America; JOHN F. KELLY, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORI SCIALABBA, as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; REX W. TILLERSON, as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-112
Judge William M. Conley
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendants have not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this litigation.

Dated: New York, New York April 28, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Vincent Levy HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP Vincent Levy (vlevy@hsgllp.com) Lauren Giudice (lgiudice@hsgllp.com) Andrew Breidenbach (abreidenbach@hsgllp.com) Andrei Vrabie (avrabie@hsgllp.com) Matthew V.H. Noller (mnoller@hsgllp.com) Sarah Sternlieb (ssternlieb@hsgllp.com) Kevin Benish (kbenish@hsgllp.com) (law clerk –

Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 53 Filed: 04/28/17 Page 2 of 2
New York State Bar admission pending) 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 (646) 837-5151 PINES BACH LLP Lester A. Pines, SBN 1016543 Tamara B. Packard, SBN 1023111 Alison TenBruggencate, SBN 1018869 122 West Washington Ave., Ste. 900 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 251-0101 (telephone) (608) 251-2883 (facsimile) lpines@pinesbach.com tpackard@pinesbach.com atenbruggencate@pinesbach.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
4821-9466-4519, v. 1

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 1 of 9
U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin (Madison) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17−cv−00112−wmc

CLOSED

Doe, John v. Trump, Donald et al Assigned to: District Judge William M. Conley Referred to: Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker Cause: 05:7703 Discrimination − Review of Agency Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Date Terminated: 05/01/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

John Doe

represented by Andrei Vrabie Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 646−837−8381 Email: avrabie@hsgllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Breidenbach Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 646−837−8381 Email: abreidenbach@hsgllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Nicole Giudice Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 646−837−8381 Email: lgiudice@hsgllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Noller Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 646−837−8381 Email: mnoller@hsgllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vincent Levy Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 646−837−5120 Email: vlevy@hsgllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lester A. Pines Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 2 of 9
122 W. Washington Ave Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703 608−251−0101 Fax: 608−251−2883 Email: Pines@cwpb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Magdalene Alison TenBruggencate Pines Bach LLP 122 W. Washington Avenue, Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703−9500 608−251−0101 Fax: 608−251−2883 Email: tenbruggencate@pinesbach.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Michelle Sternlieb Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP 750 Seventh Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10019 646−837−8381 Email: ssternlieb@hsgllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara Beth Packard Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP 122 W. Washington Ave Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703 608−251−0101x316 Fax: 608−251−2883 Email: tpackard@pinesbach.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Donald J. Trump As President of the United States of America
Defendant John F. Kelly As Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Yamileth G. Davila U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−0137 Email: Yamileth.g.davila@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela Westwater US Department of Justice; Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC, DC 20001 202−532−4174 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: gisela.westwater@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 3 of 9

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant The Department of Homeland Security

represented by Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lori Scialabba Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Rex W. Tillerson

represented by Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant U.S. Department of State

represented by Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant The United States of America

represented by Leslie K. Herje U.S. Attorney's Office 222 W. Washington Ave. Suite 700

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 4 of 9
Madison, WI 53703 608−264−5158 Fax: 608−264−5724 Email: leslie.herje@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yamileth G. Davila (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gisela Westwater (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/13/2017
02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0758−1970453.), filed by John Doe, (Attachments: # 1 JS−44 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons of Donald J. Trump, # 3 Summons of John F. Kelly, # 4 Summons of the Department of Homeland Security, # 5 Summons of Lori Scialabba, # 6 Summons of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, # 7 Summons of Rex W. Tillerson, # 8 Summons of the United States Department of State, # 9 Summons of the United States of America) (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously and to File Certain Documents Under Seal or With Redactions by Plaintiff John Doe. Response due 2/21/2017. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
3 Brief in Support of 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously and to File Certain Documents Under Seal or With Redactions by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
4 Affidavit of John Doe filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously and to File Certain Documents Under Seal or With Redactions. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
Case randomly assigned to District Judge William M. Conley and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (voc) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
Standard attachments for Judge William M. Conley required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: NORTC, Corporate Disclosure Statement. (voc) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
5 Exhibit to 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously and to File Certain Documents Under Seal or With Redactions filed by John Doe. Proposed Order. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
7 Summons Issued as to John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Summons John F. Kelly, # 2 Summons The Department of Homeland Security, # 3 Summons Lori Scialabba, # 4 Summons U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, # 5 Summons Rex W. Tillerson, # 6 Summons U.S. Department of State, # 7 Summons The United States of America) (voc) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 5 of 9

02/13/2017
02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/14/2017

8 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Plaintiff John Doe, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 2/14/2017: This is a multi−part motion. (lak) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
9 Brief in Support of 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
10 Disregard. See 13 . Modified on 2/14/2017. (lak) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
11 Affidavit of John Doe filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
12 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
13 Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Press Release issued by Candidate Trump, dated Dec. 7, 2015, # 2 Exhibit B: Washington Post Article by J. Johnson and S. Sullivan, dated Dec. 8, 2015, # 3 Exhibit C: Transcript of Interview of Candidate Trump by A. Cooper, dated March 9, 2016, # 4 Exhibit D: Transcript of GOP Primary Debate on March 10, 2016, # 5 Exhibit E: WP Rhode Island Article by T. Nesi and S. Machado, dated April 25, 2016, # 6 Exhibit F: Press Release issued by Candidate Trump, dated June 13, 2016, # 7 Exhibit G: Politico Article by B. Schreckinger, dated June 14, 2016, # 8 Exhibit H: Transcript of Interview of Candidate Trump by C. Todd, dated July 24, 2016, # 9 Exhibit I: Time Article with Transcript of Foreign Policy Speech by Candidate Trump, dated Aug. 15, 2016, # 10 Exhibit J: Report by Congressional Research Service, dated Jan. 23, 2017, # 11 Exhibit K: Cato Institute Blog Article by A. Nowrasteh, dated Jan. 25, 2017, # 12 Exhibit L: Transcript of First Television Interview of President Trump, dated Jan. 26, 2017, # 13 Exhibit M: Christian Broadcasting Network Article by D. Brody, dated Jan. 27, 2017, # 14 Exhibit N: Executive Order 13769, dated Jan. 27, 2017, # 15 Exhibit O: CNN Article by D. Merica, dated Jan. 30, 2017, # 16 Exhibit P: Foreign Policy Article by K. Surana and M. O'Toole, dated Jan. 27, 2017, # 17 Exhibit Q: Washington Post Article by A. Wang, dated Jan. 29, 2017, # 18 Exhibit R: Public Radio International Article by A. Leff, dated Jan. 29, 2017, # 19 Exhibit S: Atlantic Article by U. Friedman, dated Jan. 30, 2017, # 20 Exhibit T: CNN Article by J. Diamond, dated Jan. 30, 2017, # 21 Exhibit U: New York Times Article with Letter by then−Acting US Attorney General S. Yates, dated Jan. 30, 2017, # 22 Exhibit V: Memorandum to USCIS Employees by L. Scialabba, dated Feb. 2, 2017, # 23 Exhibit W: Q&A for Border Patrol on Executive Order 13769, dated Feb. 2, 2017, # 24 Exhibit X: Joint Declaration in Washington v. Trump by M. Albright et al., dated Feb. 6, 2017, # 25 Exhibit Y: H.R. Rep. No. 89−745 (1965), # 26 Exhibit Z: S. Rep. No. 89−748 (1965), # 27 Exhibit AA: President L.B. Johnson's Remarks at Liberty Island on Oct. 3, 1965, # 28 Exhibit BB: DHS Report on Refugees and Asylees (2005), # 29 Exhibit CC: Final Act of 1951 UN Conference on Status of Refugees, dated July 25, 1951, # 30 Exhibit DD: DHS Webpage on Refugee Processing and Security Screening, dated Dec. 3, 2015, # 31 Exhibit EE: Transcript of Candidate Trump and M. Pence on 60 Minutes, dated July 17, 2016) (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 6 of 9

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 02/17/2017
02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/17/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017

14 ORDER re: 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Order granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 2/14/2017. (voc) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
15 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. John F. Kelly served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; Lori Scialabba served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; The Department of Homeland Security served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; The United States of America served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; Rex W. Tillerson served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; Donald J. Trump served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017; U.S. Department of State served on 2/13/2017, answer due 4/14/2017. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
16 Affidavit of Service filed by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 2/15/2017: Wrong docketing event was selected. (lak) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
17 Notice of Appearance filed by Lester A. Pines for Plaintiff John Doe. (Pines, Lester) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
18 Notice of Appearance filed by Tamara Beth Packard for Plaintiff John Doe. (Packard, Tamara) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
19 Notice of Appearance filed by Yamileth G. Davila for Defendants John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State. (Davila, Yamileth) Modified on 2/16/2017. (lak) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
20 Affidavit of Service. (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 2/16/2017. (lak) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
21 Affidavit of Service. (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 2/16/2017. (lak) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
22 Notice of Appearance filed by Magdalene Alison TenBruggencate for Plaintiff John Doe. (TenBruggencate, Magdalene) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
23 Response re: 14 Order on Preliminary Injunction by Defendants John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Nationwide Injunction on Executive Order) (Davila, Yamileth) Modified on 2/17/2017: Added exhibit description. E−mail to counsel. (lak) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
24 Disregard. See 26 . Modified on 2/20/2017. (lak) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
25 ORDER denying as moot 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and setting a telephonic status conference for March 22, 2017 at 3:00 PM. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 2/17/2017. (jls) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
Set Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/22/2017 at 03:00 PM before Judge William M. Conley. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264−5087. (jls) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge William M. Conley: Telephone Conference held on 2/17/2017 [:15] (mfh) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
26 Notice of Appearance filed by Sarah Michelle Sternlieb for Plaintiff John Doe. (Sternlieb, Sarah) Modified on 2/20/2017. (lak) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
27 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 3/10/2017. (lak) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
28 Notice by Plaintiff John Doe for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
Set Telephone Status Conference: Telephone Status Conference set for Friday, March 10, 2017 at 4:30 PM CST before District Judge William M. Conley. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264−5087. (arw)

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 7 of 9

03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017
03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017 03/13/2017

(Entered: 03/10/2017)
29 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 3/13/2017 (voc). (Entered: 03/10/2017)
30 Brief in Support of 29 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
31 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 29 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
32 Unsigned Second Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 29 Motion for TRO, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FF − Revised Executive Order, dated March 6, 2017 (Pages 17 − 23 are blank.), # 2 Exhibit GG − Tweet by President Trump, dated January 30, 2017, # 3 Exhibit HH − CNN Politics article by K. Liptak, dated February 9, 2017, # 4 Exhibit II − Salon article by T. Link, dated February 22, 2017 (Pages 9 − 11 are blank.), # 5 Exhibit JJ − DHS Memo, titled "Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States", # 6 Exhibit KK − DHS Intelligence Assessment, dated March 2017, # 7 Exhibit LL − CNN Politics article by L. Jarrett, A. de Vogue, and J. Diamond, dated March 1, 2017, # 8 Exhibit MM − Washington Post article by G. Sargent, dated March 3, 2017, # 9 Exhibit NN − Washington Post article by P. Rucker, R. Costa and A. Parker, dated March 5, 2017, # 10 Exhibit OO − Vox article by M. Yglesias, dated March 6, 2017, # 11 Exhibit PP − Politico article by E. Schor and K. Cheney, dated March 6, 2017, # 12 Exhibit QQ − Slate article by M. Joseph Stern, dated March 6, 2017, # 13 Exhibit RR − DHS Q&A on Revised Executive Order, dated March 6, 2017, # 14 Exhibit SS − DHS Fact Sheet on Revised Executive Order, dated March 6, 2017, # 15 Exhibit TT − Foreign Affairs Manual, Casework for Follow−to−Join Asylees and Refugees, # 16 Exhibit UU − Correspondence with Defendants' Counsel) (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 3/13/2017: See 37 for signed declaration. (lak) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
33 Declaration of John Doe filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 29 Motion for TRO (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
34 ORDER granting motion for temporary restraining order and reserving on motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. # 29 .) Defendants' response to plaintiff's motion is due by March 16, 2017. Plaintiff's reply is due by noon on March 20, 2017. The court will hold an in person hearing on March 21, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/10/2017. (bgw) Modified on 3/13/2017 (voc). (Entered: 03/10/2017)
35 Motion to Seal by Plaintiff John Doe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
36 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 35 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 3/13/2017. (voc) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
Set Briefing Deadlines as to 29 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Brief in Opposition due 3/16/2017. Brief in Reply due 3/20/2017. Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2017 at 03:00 PM. (voc) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
37 Second Declaration of Andrew B. Breidenbach filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 29 Motion for TRO. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
38 Second Declaration of John Doe filed by Plaintiff John Doe re: 29 Motion for TRO, (Sealed Document) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Documentation Memorializing Initial Asylum Interview with U.S. Border Officials, dated March 24, 2014, # 2 Exhibit B: Hearing Asylum Interview with USCIS Asylum Officer, dated March

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 8 of 9

03/13/2017
03/16/2017 03/17/2017 03/17/2017 03/17/2017 03/17/2017 03/20/2017 03/20/2017

25, 2014, # 3 Exhibit C: USCIS Determination of Basis for Asylum, dated March 27, 2014, # 4 Exhibit D: Initial Application for Asylum and Withdrawal for Removal, filed April 16, 2014, # 5 Exhibit E: Denial for Request for Expedited Processing of Application for Asylum, issued March 12, 2015, # 6 Exhibit F: Excerpts of Application for Humanitarian Parole, dated Aug. 11, 2015, # 7 Exhibit G: Amended Application for Asylum and Withholding for Removal, filed Oct. 6, 2015, # 8 Exhibit H: U.S. Immigration Court Ruling, dated May 27, 2016, # 9 Exhibit I: Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, dated July 5, 2016) (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
39 Redaction to 38 Second Declaration of John Doe filed by Plaintiff John Doe, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Documentation Memorializing Initial Asylum Interview with U.S. Border Officials, dated March 24, 2014, # 2 Exhibit B: Hearing Asylum Interview with USCIS Asylum Officer, dated March 25, 2014, # 3 Exhibit C: USCIS Determination of Basis for Asylum, dated March 27, 2014, # 4 Exhibit D: Initial Application for Asylum and Withdrawal for Removal, filed April 16, 2014, # 5 Exhibit E: Denial for Request for Expedited Processing of Application for Asylum, issued March 12, 2015, # 6 Exhibit F: Excerpts of Application for Humanitarian Parole, dated Aug. 11, 2015, # 7 Exhibit G: Amended Application for Asylum and Withholding for Removal, filed Oct. 6, 2015, # 8 Exhibit H: U.S. Immigration Court Ruling, dated May 27, 2016, # 9 Exhibit I: Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition, dated July 5, 2016) (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 3/13/2017: E−mail to counsel regarding filing redacted documents. (lak) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
40 Brief in Opposition by Defendants John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State re: 29 Motion for TRO filed by John Doe, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Memo, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Disregard. See 42 .) (Davila, Yamileth) Modified on 3/17/2017. (lak) (Entered: 03/16/2017)
41 Disregard. Was linked to the brief instead of the pending motion. See 42 . Modified on 3/17/2017. (lak) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
42 Declaration of USCIS Officer Roman Ginzburg filed by Defendants John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State re: 29 Motion for TRO. (lak) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
43 Notice of Appearance filed by Gisela Westwater for Defendants John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State. (Westwater, Gisela) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
44 Joint Motion to Reschedule Hearing on Plaintiff's Pending Preliminary Injunction Motion and Preserve the Current TRO by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) Modified on 3/19/2017: Corrected docketing event, etc. (lak) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
45 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** The 44 Joint Motion to Reschedule Hearing on Plaintiff's Pending Preliminary Injunction Motion and Preserve the Current TRO is GRANTED. Shortly, the court will reschedule the hearing for sometime the week of April 10th. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/20/2017. (jls) Modified on 3/20/2017 (voc). (Entered: 03/20/2017)
Reset Briefing Deadlines as to Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff's Brief in Reply due 4/5/2017. (jef/bw: dkt. 45) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-112 As of: 05/06/2017 12:58 PM CDT 9 of 9

03/20/2017 03/20/2017 03/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/27/2017
03/29/2017
03/29/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017 05/01/2017

Set Injunctive Hearing as to 29 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Procedure to be followed on Motions for Injunctive Relief attached. Injunctive Hearing set for 4/11/2017 at 01:00 PM in courtroom 250. (voc) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
46 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Professor Victor Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Raising Political Nonjusticiability Amicus Curiae # 2 Cover Letter) (voc). (Entered: 03/20/2017)
47 Transcript of Digital Recording of Telephonic Motion Hearing, held 3/10/2017 before Judge William M. Conley. Court Reporter: JD. Please review the court policy regarding electronic transcripts: see Electronic Transcript Instructions and Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. (voc) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
48 Second Motion to Reschedule Plaintiff's Pending Preliminary Injunction Motion and Preserve the Current TRO by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
49 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** The parties' second stipulation (dkt. # 48 ) is ACCEPTED. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of his motion for preliminary injunction is now due April 28, 2017. After receipt of the reply brief, the hearing will be rescheduled to a date that is convenient for the court on or after May 1, 2017. The March 10, 2017, TRO remains in effect through the hearing on the motion. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/27/2017. (voc) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
50 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Proposed Statement of Record Facts Out of Time by Defendants John F. Kelly, Lori Scialabba, The Department of Homeland Security, The United States of America, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of State, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Davila, Yamileth) Modified on 3/29/2017. (lak) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
51 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** ORDER granting 50 Motion for Leave to File Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Proposed Statement of Record Facts Out of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 3/29/2017. (jls) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
52 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion by Plaintiff John Doe re: 29 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) M (Entered: 04/28/2017)
53 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff John Doe. (Vrabie, Andrei) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), this case is closed without further order of the court. (voc/bgw) (Entered: 05/01/2017)