Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 1 of 42
CLOSED,HABEAS
United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−11842−PBS

Devitri et al v. Cronen et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Patti B. Saris related Cases: 1:18−cv−11261−PBS
1:18−cv−10823−PBS 1:19−cv−10519−DJC Case in other court: USCA − First Circuit, 17−02160
USCA − First Circuit, 18−01281 Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/25/2017 Date Terminated: 06/28/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 463 Habeas Corpus − Alien Detainee Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Lia Devitri

represented by Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero Nixon Peabody, LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 617−345−1000 Email: rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sydney Pritchett Nixon & Peabody, LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 617−345−6008 Email: spritchett@nixonpeabody.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 603−628−4047 Email: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adriana Lafaille American Civil Liberties Union 211 Congress Street Boston, MA 02110 617−482−3470 Email: alafaille@aclum.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004−2400 212−549−2660 Email: abalakrishnan@aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 2 of 42

Gilles R. Bissonnette American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 603−224−5591 Email: gilles@aclu−nh.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz American Civil Liberties Union 18th Floor 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212−549−2618 Fax: 212−549−2651 Email: jrabinovitz@aclu.org (Inactive) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street 17th Floor New York, NY 10004−2400 212−549−2660 Email: lgelernt@aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal American Civil Liberties Union 211 Congress Street Boston, MA 02110 617−482−3170 Fax: 617−451−0009 Email: msegal@aclum.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm Street, 14th Floor Manchester, NH 03101 603−628−4077 Email: nwarecki@nixonpeabody.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eva Grasje

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 3 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Syane Kaloh

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 4 of 42

Plaintiff John Londa
Plaintiff Meldy Lumangkun

Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 5 of 42

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Martin Lumingkewas

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 6 of 42

Plaintiff Meive Lumingkewas
Plaintiff Terry Rombot

Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 7 of 42

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Agus Setiawan

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 8 of 42

Plaintiff Freddy Sombah
Plaintiff Poppy Sombah

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 9 of 42

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sydney Pritchett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Roy Antouw Amended Complaint # 22

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 10 of 42

Plaintiff Debby Walandow Amended Complaint # 22
Plaintiff Arnold Budihardjo Amended Complaint # 22

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 11 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Virake Budihardjo Amended Complaint # 22

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Eman Amended Complaint # 22

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 12 of 42

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Greace Mambo Amended Complaint # 22

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 13 of 42

Plaintiff Sonny Mambo Amended Complaint # 22
Plaintiff Eddy Panjaitan Amended Complaint # 22

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 14 of 42

Plaintiff Christian Pentury Amended Complaint # 22
Plaintiff Hesti Rimper Amended Complaint # 22

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 15 of 42

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Linaria Sinaga Amended Complaint # 22

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathan P. Warecki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yayha Banturino

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 16 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jody Soebagyo

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pinta Chrismilian

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 17 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nico Fnu

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Willy Mandagi

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 18 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Adele Tumbel

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Tombeng

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 19 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jane Pajow

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Goltodo Parapat

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 20 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Margariet Sitompul

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sero Rarung TERMINATED: 04/13/2018

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 21 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stephen Rarung

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hefri Senduk

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 22 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura Rondonuwu

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wenda Chapman

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 23 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Samuel Wondal

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jacklyn Lele

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 24 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Markus Subroto

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tamara Tasya

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 25 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Felicia Lukman

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kajono Gunardi

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 26 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Leny Sutanto

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bobby Candra TERMINATED: 01/22/2018

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 27 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Franky Massie

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sandra Sahertian

represented by Adriana Lafaille (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gilles R. Bissonnette (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy Rabinovitz

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 28 of 42

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

Lee Gelernt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Segal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ester Arina Amended Complaint #44

represented by W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Elvis Sepang Amended Complaint #44

represented by W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Heru Kurniawan Amended Complaint #44

represented by W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Deetje Patty Amended Complaint #44

represented by W. Daniel Deane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Chris M. Cronen Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Rayford A. Farquhar United States Attorney's Office John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 617−748−3100 Fax: 617−748−3971 Email: rayford.farquhar@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Celone United States Department of Justice; Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation−District Court Section P.O. Box 868−−Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20066−0868 (202) 305−2040 Email: michael.a.celone@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 29 of 42

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Sady United States Attorney's Office John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 617−748−3362 Fax: 617−748−3971 Email: michael.sady@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vinita B. Andrapalliyal United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20530 (202) 598−8085 Email: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis United States Department of Justice 450 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 202−307−4693 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: william.silvis@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Timothy Stevens Manchester Sub−Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Rayford A. Farquhar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Celone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Sady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vinita B. Andrapalliyal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Elaine C. Duke Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by Rayford A. Farquhar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael A. Celone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 30 of 42

Michael P. Sady (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vinita B. Andrapalliyal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Pro Se Party John A. Hawkinson

represented by John A. Hawkinson P.O. Box 397103 Cambridge, MA 02139−7103 617−797−0250 Email: jhawk@alum.mit.edu PRO SE

Date Filed 09/25/2017
09/25/2017 09/25/2017 09/25/2017
09/25/2017 09/25/2017 09/25/2017

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and Mandamus and Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number 0101−6811818 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah.(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
4 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal, 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal filed by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Sydney Pritchett, # 2 Affidavit of William P. Joyce, Esq., # 3 Affidavit of Rev. Sandra Pontoh)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronaldo Rauseo−Ricupero on behalf of Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah (Rauseo−Ricupero, Ronaldo) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
6 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief Judge Patti B. Saris assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. (Garvin, Brendan) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Sydney Pritchett on behalf of Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah (Pritchett, Sydney) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 31 of 42

09/25/2017
09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017

8 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. A hearing will be held on Tuesday September 26, 2017 at 11 a.m. in Courtroom 19, 7th Floor. The respondents/defendants shall, within 21 days of receipt of the petition, respond to the petition. In order to give the Court time to consider the matter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs shall not be moved outside the District of Massachusetts without providing the Court 48 hours' advance notice of the move and the reason therefore. Any such 48−hour notice period shall commence at the date and time such notice is filed and expire 48 hours later, except "[i]f the period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2)(C). The Clerk of this Court served copies of the petition, motions and memorandum (going out by first class mail on 9/26/17) upon: (i) Chris M. Cronen, ICE Boston Field Office Director; (ii) Timothy Stevens, ICE Manchester Sub−Office Director; (iii) Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and (iv) the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. On 9/25/2017, the Clerk made a courtesy phone call (concerning the hearing) and sent a courtesy email (with copies of the order and pleadings) to the office of the US Attorney.(PSSA, 4) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
9 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal, 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal :.... Motion Hearing set for 9/26/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. COURT NOTIFIED Ausa by telephone on 9/25/17 of hearing date. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Rayford A. Farquhar on behalf of Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens (Farquhar, Rayford) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael P. Sady on behalf of Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
12 Online access to documents in this case is limited to counsel of record only. All documents are available for review in the Office of the Clerk. Counsel of record: please note that you will need to log into CM/ECF to access any documents in this case. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Vinita B. Andrapalliyal on behalf of Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens (Attachments: # 1 Errata Certificate of Service)(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
14 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER STAY OF REMOVAL entered. Having considered Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal and Memorandum in Support Thereof, after hearing, the Court holds that this is a proper case for the issuance of an order to maintain the status quo until the Court determines whether it has jurisdiction. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 290 (1947). A briefing schedule has been established.

09/26/2017 09/26/2017

Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from removing or causing the removal from the United States of all named Plaintiffs, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated, at any time, in 'Operation Indonesian Surrender.' All such removals now pending are hereby stayed and shall not proceed until further order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
15 AMENDMENT re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) a by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah (Deane, W.) Modified docket text on 9/26/2017 in accordance with pleading filed (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 09/26/2017)
16 Proposed Document submitted by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah. Document received: Revised Proposed Order Emergency Stay of Removal. ( Proposed Order submitted by email to the Clerk ). (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 32 of 42

09/26/2017 09/26/2017
09/27/2017 09/27/2017 09/27/2017

17 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: AMENDED ORDER entered.... Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from removing or causing the removal from the United States of all Plaintiffs named in the Courts original Order (Docket No. 14, dated September 26, 2017), and Heru Kurniawan and Deetje Patty , with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested,detained, or removed by ICE after having participated, at anytime, in Operation Indonesian Surrender. All such removals now pending are hereby stayed and shall not proceed until further order of the Court. See Order attached for further details. IT IS SO ORDERED. /(Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
19 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 9/26/2017 re 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal filed by Poppy Sombah, John Londa, Syane Kaloh, Terry Rombot, Lia Devitri, Freddy Sombah, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Eva Grasje, Agus Setiawan, Meive Lumingkewas, 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal filed by Poppy Sombah, John Londa, Syane Kaloh, Terry Rombot, Lia Devitri, Freddy Sombah, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Eva Grasje, Agus Setiawan, Meive Lumingkewas......ORDERED: Gvt shall file briefs on Jurisdictional Issues and produce any documents pertaining to the Program − "Operation Indonesian Surrender" on or before 10/3/17. Parties shall meet and confer regarding a Briefing Schedule and submit a proposed schedule by 10/3/17 for the Court's approval. All matters taken under advisement. See Amended Order dated 9/26/17 for further details. (Ausa Sady, Farquhar, Atty Rauseo−Ricupero, Deane, Andrapalliyal)(Court Reporter: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com.) (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
18 Emergency MOTION for Clarification re 17 Order,, by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah.(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
20 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered − Denying 18 Motion for Clarification..."Denied with prejudice to filing an amended complaint with allegations specific to each plaintiff/putative class member. Alternatively, plaintiffs may confer with the government to negotiate a stand−still with respect to all participants in "Operation Indonesian Surrender". (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
21 AMENDED ORDER entered − CORRECTING clerical error as to docket entry #20 to "DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE"

09/28/2017
09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered − Denying #18 Motion for Clarification..."DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE" to filing an amended complaint with allegations specific to each plaintiff/putative class member. Alternatively, plaintiffs may confer with the government to negotiate a stand−still with respect to all participants in "Operation Indonesian Surrender".(Molloy, Maryellen) Modified on 9/27/2017 (Molloy, Maryellen). (Entered: 09/27/2017)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT (First Amended Class Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus and Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) against All Defendants, filed by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah.(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
23 Emergency MOTION for Clarification re 17 Order,, (Renewed) by Lia Devitri, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah.(Deane, W.) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael A. Celone on behalf of Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens (Celone, Michael) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
25 MOTION to Intervene by John A. Hawkinson ( Pro− Se ).(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
26 MOTION for Order to permit remote access to Electronic Court Filings by John A. Hawkinson ( Pro− Se ).(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 33 of 42

09/28/2017 09/29/2017

27 MEMORANDUM in Support re 26 MOTION for Order to permit remote access to Electronic Court Filings by John A. Hawkinson ( Pro− Se ). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
28 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered " ALLOWED, The Stay applies to the newly added plaintiffs " re 23 Emergency MOTION for Clarification re 17 Order.

09/29/2017 10/02/2017
10/03/2017
10/03/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017
10/05/2017
10/06/2017

Added Plaintiffs: Roy Antouw, Debby Walandow, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Michael Eman, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Eddy Panjaitan, Christian Pentury, Hesti Rimper and Linaria Sinaga. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
29 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered Allowed 25 Motion to Intervene (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
30 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Nathan P. Warecki Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101−6822470 by Roy Antouw, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Eddy Panjaitan, Christian Pentury, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Debby Walandow.(Deane, W.) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
31 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 30 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Nathan P. Warecki. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
32 Recommendations for Scheduling Order . (Deane, W.) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
33 ( DUPLICATE filing re 32 ) Proposed Document(s) submitted by Lia Devitri. Document received: Petitioner's/Plaintiff's Proposed Briefing Schedule. (Deane, W.) Modified on 11/22/2017 as pleading filed in duplicated re 32 . (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/03/2017)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by William C. Silvis on behalf of Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens (Silvis, William) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
35 Recommendations for Scheduling Order to Set Briefing Schedule for Briefing on Jurisdiction and the Preliminary Injunction. (Celone, Michael) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
36 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens to 19 Motion Hearing,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) Modified docket text on 10/5/2017 to correct filing parties. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/03/2017)
37 NOTICE OF PRODUCTION of documents pertaining to Operation Indonesian Surrender/RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens re 19 Motion Hearing . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Volume 1: Exhibits A through GG, # 3 Exhibit Volume 2: Exhibits HH through XX)(Celone, Michael) Modified docket text on 10/4/2017 in accordance with pleading filed. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/03/2017)
38 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule. ORDERED: Defendants' Brief on Jurisdictional issues due by 10/3/17; Plaintiffs' Reply Brief on Jurisdictional issues due on 10/12/17; Evidentiary Hearing on Jurisdictional issues will go forward in this case and related case 17−cv−11577−PBS on Friday 10/20/17 at 9:00am before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris in courtroom #19 − 7th floor.....The Court will set a Schedule on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction after the Court decides if it has jurisdiction. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
39 Emergency MOTION to Amend by Roy Antouw, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 34 of 42

10/06/2017 10/06/2017 10/06/2017 10/06/2017
10/06/2017
10/06/2017

Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Eddy Panjaitan, Christian Pentury, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Debby Walandow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Deane, W.) Modified on 10/23/2017 to correct filing parties. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/06/2017)
40 Emergency MOTION for Clarification by Roy Antouw, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Eddy Panjaitan, Christian Pentury, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Debby Walandow.(Deane, W.) Modified on 10/23/2017 to correct filing party(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/06/2017)
41 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered " ALLOWED " re 39 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
42 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered re 40 Emergency MOTION for Clarification. " The Government has alleged that some of the plaintiffs were not part of Operation Indonesian Surrender. Plaintiffs shall submit an affidavit listing all plaintiffs who were part of Operation Indonesian Surrender before the court will stay removal pending an adjudication of jurisdiction ". (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
43 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered " The Court allows the motion for order allowing remote access to nonsealed electronic court filings effective 10/13/17. However, the parties may review the filings to redact private or confidential information about the petitioners (like file numbers, addresses, names of family members )" re granting (17) Motion to Intervene; granting (18) Motion for Order in case 1:17−cv−11577−PBS; granting (26) Motion for Order in case 1:17−cv−11842−PBS
Associated Cases: 1:17−cv−11842−PBS, 1:17−cv−11577−PBS(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
44 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second Amended Complaint) against All Defendants, filed by Roy Antouw, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Eva Grasje, Syane Kaloh, John Londa, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Eddy Panjaitan, Christian Pentury, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Debby Walandow, Yayha Banturino, Jody Soebagyo, Pinta Chrismilian, Nico Fnu, Willy Mandagi, Adele Tumbel, James Tombeng, Jane Pajow, Goltodo Parapat, Margariet Sitompul, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hefri Senduk, Laura Rondonuwu, Wenda Chapman, Samuel Wondal, Jacklyn Lele, Markus Subroto, Tamara Tasya, Felicia Lukman, Kajono Gunardi, Leny Sutanto, Bobby Candra, Franky Massie, Sandra Sahertian.(Deane, W.) Modified on 10/23/2017 to correct filing parties. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/06/2017)
45 Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Lee Gelernt, Judy Rabinovitz, Anand Balakrishnan Filing fee: $ 300, receipt number 0101−6831120 by Roy Antouw, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Lee Gelernt, # 2 Affidavit Judy Rabinovitz, # 3 Affidavit Anand Balakrishnan)(Deane, W.) Modified on 10/23/2017 to correct filing parties. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 35 of 42

10/11/2017 10/12/2017

46 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Evidence Hearing..... Evidentiary hearing will go forward as scheduled on Friday 10/20/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
47 NOTICE re : EVIDENTIARY HEARING SET FOR 10/20/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris.

If Counsel intends to call witnesses during the evidentiary hearing, Counsel should provide the Court with a witness list and estimated lengths of time for questioning on or before Wednesday, 10/18/17.

10/12/2017

Associated Cases: 1:17−cv−11577−PBS, 1:17−cv−11842−PBS(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
48 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWED 45 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Lee Gelernt, Judy Rabinovitz, Anand Balakrishnan.

10/12/2017 10/13/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017

Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
49 BRIEF by Roy Antouw, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal to 36 Memorandum of Law, . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Russell Hilliard, # 2 Affidavit Sandra Pontoh (Supplemental), # 3 Affidavit William Hahn, # 4 Affidavit Susan Church, # 5 Affidavit Trina Realmuto, # 6 Affidavit Jeffrey Winters)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Gilles R. Bissonnette on behalf of Roy Antouw, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal (Bissonnette, Gilles) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by Adriana Lafaille on behalf of Roy Antouw, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal (Lafaille, Adriana) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Segal on behalf of Roy Antouw, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 36 of 42

10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/25/2017 10/26/2017 10/26/2017
10/27/2017 10/30/2017 11/22/2017

Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal (Segal, Matthew) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
53 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
54 Respondents' Witness List for the Evidentiary Hearing on October 20, 2017 by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, Witness List)(Silvis, William) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
55 EXHIBIT A filed in Open Court at EVIDENTIARY HEARING held on 10/20/2017 Associated Cases: 1:17−cv−11577−PBS, 1:17−cv−11842−PBS(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
56 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/20/2017. ICE Agent T.Stevens−sworn. ORDERED: The Gvt shall report to the Court by no later than 10/25/17 on the estimated time it would take to produce the A−files for all Petitioners/Plaintiffs, all matters taken under advisement, court adjourned. (Court Reporter: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com.) (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
57 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens re 56 Evidentiary Hearing, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of Guarna−Armstrong)(Silvis, William) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
58 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered " Respondents shall produce the A−Files to the named plaintiffs forthwith. When a review off file is completed, it shall be produced. The government shall not wait for the completion review of all files. Attorneys for the plaintiffs shall review the record of proceedings in the Immigration Court" re 57 Response. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
59 Emergency MOTION for Clarification re 17 Order,, 28 Order on Motion for Clarification, (Renewed Emergency Motion for Clarification of Court's Order in Light of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint) by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Deane, W.) (Attachment 1 replaced and Attachment 2 replaced on 10/30/2017 − pursuant to General Order 09−1, regarding the E−Government Act and Personal Identifiers ) (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 10/26/2017)
60 General Order 09−1, dated January 6, 2009 regarding the E−Government Act and Personal Identifiers entered. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
61 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Endorsed ORDER entered " Allowed Without Opposition " re 59 Renewed Emergency Motion for Clarification of Court's Order in Light of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
62 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 8 Order, 14 Order Stay of Removal, 17 Amended Order, 28 Order, 58 Order by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens Fee Status: US Government. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 37 of 42

11/24/2017 11/27/2017 11/27/2017
12/05/2017 12/06/2017 12/20/2017 12/21/2017
12/22/2017 12/29/2017

be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 12/12/2017. (Silvis, William) (Modified on 11/24/2017 to Correct Docket Text and CM/ECF Document Links) (Paine, Matthew). (Entered: 11/22/2017)
63 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 62 Notice of Appeal. (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 11/24/2017)
64 USCA Case Number 17−2160 for 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Elaine C. Duke, Chris M. Cronen, Timothy Stevens. (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
65 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered :
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that it has subject−matter jurisdiction over Counts I and II in the SAC. This Court dismisses without prejudice Count III addressed in the companion case. See Rombot v. Souza, 1:17−cv−11577−PBS, Docket No. 49; Docket No. 52. The government is hereby temporarily enjoined from removing all Petitioners named in the SAC until the Court rules on the motion for preliminary injunction or until further order of the Court. SO ORDERED(Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
66 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/20/2017 to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens.(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
67 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWED 66 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal
Responses due by 12/20/2017 (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
68 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal filed by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
69 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in response to Defendants' Opposition to 68 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal, by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal.(Deane, W.) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
70 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 69 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include − Leave to file granted on (date of order)− in the caption of the document. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
71 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal :
MOTION HEARING SET FOR 1/17/2018 09:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 12/29/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 38 of 42

01/05/2018
01/08/2018 01/09/2018

72 REPLY to Response to 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal filed by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
73 NOTICE: By Wednesday, 1/10/18, Counsel for Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Respondents/Defendants shall inform the Court (by filing a letter on ecf) about whether or not they intend to call witnesses at the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, 1/17/18 at 9:00am in Courtroom #19 7th floor. If witnesses will be called, Counsel shall provide the Court with a witness list and estimated lengths of time for questioning by Friday, 1/12/2018. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
74 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. On October 26, 2017, this Court ordered the government to provide the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs with their alien files (A−files). See Docket No. 58 . The Court's order read: "Respondents shall produce the A−files to the named plaintiffs forthwith. When a review of the file is completed, it shall be produced. The government shall not wait for the completion of review of all the files. Attorneys for the plaintiffs shall review the record of proceedings in the Immigration Court. Docket No. 58.Petitioners/Plaintiffs assert that, as of January 5, 2018, Respondents/Defendants had not complied with the Courts order to produce the A−files. See Docket No. 72 at 6−8.

They further assert that individual Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been filed for each named Petitioner/Plaintiff. See Docket No. 72 at 7−8.

Respondents/Defendants shall file a notice on ECF by January 16, 2018 informing the Court of (1) the steps they have taken thus far to comply with the Courts order to produce the A−files (Docket No. 58 ), and (2) the estimated time necessary to produce all remaining A−files for the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs also shall file a notice on ECF by January 16, 2018 informing the Court of (1) the filing dates of all individual FOIA requests, and (2) the list of all A−files for the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs currently in counsels possession. SO ORDERED.

01/10/2018 01/10/2018 01/12/2018
01/16/2018
01/16/2018

SET DEADLINES AS TO: Responses due by 1/16/2018 (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
75 Letter/request (non−motion) from Plaintiffs' Counsel regarding Witnesses for Preliminary Injunction Hearing. (Deane, W.) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
76 Letter/request (non−motion) from Respondents re: Witnesses at Preliminary Injunction Hearing. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
77 TRANSCRIPT ORDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM received from USCA and addressed to Lee Marzilli re 62 Notice of Appeal,,,, Transcript order form filed in USCA on January 12, 2018. Transcripts ordered: 9/26/17 and 10/20/17. Transcripts due by 3/13/2018. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
78 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Resetting***TIME ONLY FROM 9:00am to 10:00am*** on 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal...... Motion Hearing will go forward on Wednesday 1/17/2018 at 10:00AM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
79 STATUS REPORT re A−files by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun,

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 39 of 42

01/16/2018 01/17/2018
01/19/2018 01/19/2018
01/19/2018
01/22/2018 01/22/2018

Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal. (Deane, W.) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
80 STATUS REPORT re: A−files by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
81 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Motion Hearing held on 1/17/2018 Docket #3 − − MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal filed by Poppy Sombah, John Londa, Syane Kaloh, Terry Rombot, Lia Devitri, Freddy Sombah, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Eva Grasje, Agus Setiawan, Meive Lumingkewas, et al........ ORDERED: Motion for Preliminary Injunction taken under advisement. Plaintiffs shall file a Notice of Withdrawal as to the three individuals discussed in open court, Notice to be filed by no later than 1/19/18. Plaintiffs shall file any additional individualized affidavits in support of the motion for preliminary injunction by 1/24/18. The Government shall inform the Court of whether it intends to respond to the additional affidavits by 1/26/18. The Government shall inform the Court of whether Plaintiffs' counsel will be able to photocopy the records of proceedings in the Immigration Court by 1/22/18. (Court Reporter: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com.) (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
82 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens.(Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
83 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of Petitioner Candra by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal OF WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONER CANDRA (Deane, W.) Modified docket text on 1/22/2018 (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde). (Entered: 01/19/2018)
84 MOTION for Reconsideration and Correction of Record by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Enrique F. Mesa, Jr., Esq.)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
85 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ENDORSED ORDER entered " ALLOWED. Good Luck in your new position " re 82 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.
Attorney Vinita B. Andrapalliyal terminated (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
86 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Endorsed ORDER entered " Allowed " re 84 Motion for Reconsideration (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 40 of 42

01/24/2018 01/24/2018
01/26/2018 02/01/2018

87 Letter/request (non−motion) from AUSA Rayford A. Farquhar and AUSA Michael Sady . (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
88 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal (Supplemental Submission on Irreparability of Harm) filed by Roy Antouw, Ester Arina, Yayha Banturino, Arnold Budihardjo, Virake Budihardjo, Bobby Candra, Wenda Chapman, Pinta Chrismilian, Lia Devitri, Michael Eman, Nico Fnu, Eva Grasje, Kajono Gunardi, Syane Kaloh, Heru Kurniawan, Jacklyn Lele, John Londa, Felicia Lukman, Meldy Lumangkun, Martin Lumingkewas, Meive Lumingkewas, Greace Mambo, Sonny Mambo, Willy Mandagi, Franky Massie, Jane Pajow, Eddy Panjaitan, Goltodo Parapat, Deetje Patty, Christian Pentury, Sero Rarung, Stephen Rarung, Hesti Rimper, Terry Rombot, Laura Rondonuwu, Sandra Sahertian, Hefri Senduk, Elvis Sepang, Agus Setiawan, Linaria Sinaga, Margariet Sitompul, Jody Soebagyo, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Sombah, Markus Subroto, Leny Sutanto, Tamara Tasya, James Tombeng, Adele Tumbel, Debby Walandow, Samuel Wondal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Supplemental Affidavit of Jeffrey A. Winters, Ph.D., # 2 Exhibit B − Affidavit of Professor Daniel Kanstroom, # 3 Exhibit C − Affidavit of Matthew L. Hoppock, Esq.)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
89 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Deane, W.) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
90 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered.

The Government is hereby stayed from removing any named Petitioner from the United States until one of the following conditions occurs:

(1)If any named Petitioner fails to file a motion to reopen and motion to stay with the BIA or Immigration Court within ninety days after receiving his or her A−file, the preliminary injunction will terminate as to that particular Petitioner. If a named Petitioner fails to file a timely appeal of the Immigration Courts denial of a motion to reopen to the BIA, the stay shall terminate as to that particular Petitioner.

(2)If any named Petitioner fails to file a motion for relief with the First Circuit within seven business days of the BIA denying his or her motion to reopen, the preliminary injunction will terminate as to that particular Petitioner.

03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/15/2018

(3)If an appeal of a denial of a motion to reopen is filed in the First Circuit within seven business days, the stay will terminate as to that particular Petitioner unless the First Circuit orders otherwise. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
91 Transcript of Motion Hearing held on September 26, 2017, before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. COA Case No. 17−2160. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com Redaction Request due 4/2/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/12/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/11/2018. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
92 Transcript of Motion Hearing held on October 20, 2017, before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. COA Case No. 17−2160. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com Redaction Request due 4/2/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/12/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/11/2018. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
93 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above−captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general−info.htm (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
94 STATUS CONFERENCE set for 3/28/2018 11:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Coppola, Katelyn) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 41 of 42

03/22/2018 95 NOTICE RESETTING HEARING *** TIME ONLY ***:

03/28/2018
03/30/2018
04/03/2018 04/03/2018 04/10/2018 04/10/2018 04/10/2018 04/13/2018 04/23/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 05/11/2018

STATUS CONFERENCE RESET FOR 3/28/2018 02:15 PM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
96 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Status Conference held on 3/28/2018....case on track. Further Status Conference set for 6/27/2018 02:30 PM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Court Reporter: Debra Lajoie at lajoiedebra@gmail.com.) (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
97 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 90 Memorandum & ORDER,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,, by Chris M. Cronen, Elaine C. Duke, Timothy Stevens Fee Status: US Government. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 4/19/2018. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
98 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 97 Notice of Appeal. (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
99 USCA Case Number 18−1281 for 97 Notice of Appeal filed by Elaine C. Duke, Chris M. Cronen, Timothy Stevens. (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
100 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF SERO RARUNG AS PARTY PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF by Sero Rarung (Deane, W.) (Modified on 4/11/2018 to Corect Docket Text) (Paine, Matthew). (Entered: 04/10/2018)
101 USCA Judgment as to 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Elaine C. Duke, Chris M. Cronen, Timothy Stevens (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
102 MANDATE of USCA as to 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Elaine C. Duke, Chris M. Cronen, Timothy Stevens. Appeal 62 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
*** Party Sero Rarung terminated− PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONER FILED 100 . (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
103 TRANSCRIPT ORDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM received from USCA and addressed to Lee Marzilli re 97 Notice of Appeal,,, Transcript order form filed in USCA on April 23, 2018. Transcript ordered: 1/17/18 Motion Hearing. Transcript due by 6/22/2018. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
104 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief Judge Patti B. Saris assigned to case. Associated Cases: 1:18−cv−10823, 1:17−cv−11842−PBS (Alba, Robert) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
105 Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Case already assigned to Chief Judge Saris, ignore entry 104 . (Coppola, Katelyn) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
106 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing:

05/18/2018

FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 6/27/2018 02:30 PM in Courtroom 19 before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. (Geraldino−Karasek, Clarilde) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
107 Transcript of Motion Hearing held on January 17, 2018, before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris. COA Case No. 18−1281. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com Redaction Request due 6/8/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/18/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/16/2018. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-11842 As of: 06/03/2020 08:43 PM EDT 42 of 42

05/18/2018
06/27/2018 06/27/2018 02/06/2019 04/01/2019

108 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above−captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general−info.htm (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
109 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: Status Conference held on 6/27/2018... ORDERED: Order of Administrative Stay/Closing to enter. (Court Reporter: Lee Marzilli at leemarz@aol.com.) (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
110 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAY/CLOSING entered, see order attached for further details. (Molloy, Maryellen) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
111 USCA Judgment as to 97 Notice of Appeal filed by Elaine C. Duke, Chris M. Cronen, Timothy Stevens. Appeal Dismissed... (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
112 MANDATE of USCA as to 97 Notice of Appeal filed by Elaine C. Duke, Chris M. Cronen, Timothy Stevens. Appeal 97 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 14 Filed 09/26/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

______________________________________

)

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, )

JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN )

LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY )

ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, )

POPPY SOMBAH, and all other

)

individuals similarly situated,

)

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,)

)

v.

)

)

CHRIS M. CRONEN

)

Boston Field Office Director for

)

Enforcement and Removal Operations, )

U.S. Immigration and Customs

)

Enforcement,

)

)

TIMOTHY STEVENS

)

Manchester Sub-Office Director for )

Enforcement and Removal Operations, )

U.S. Immigration and Customs

)

Enforcement,

)

)

ELAINE C. DUKE

)

Acting Secretary of the

)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, )

)

Respondents/Defendants.)

______________________________________)

Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS

ORDER September 26, 2017

Saris, Chief U.S.D.J.

Having considered Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal and Memorandum

in Support Thereof, after hearing, the Court holds that this is

a proper case for the issuance of an order to maintain the

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 14 Filed 09/26/17 Page 2 of 2

status quo until the Court determines whether it has jurisdiction. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 290 (1947). A briefing schedule has been established.
Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from removing or causing the removal from the United States of all named Plaintiffs, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated, at any time, in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender.’ All such removals now pending are hereby stayed and shall not proceed until further order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS

.

Patti B. Saris

Chief U.S. District Judge

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 17 Filed 09/26/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

______________________________________

)

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, )

JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN )

LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY )

ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, )

POPPY SOMBAH, and all other

)

individuals similarly situated,

)

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,)

)

v.

)

)

CHRIS M. CRONEN

)

Boston Field Office Director for

)

Enforcement and Removal Operations, )

U.S. Immigration and Customs

)

Enforcement,

)

)

TIMOTHY STEVENS

)

Manchester Sub-Office Director for )

Enforcement and Removal Operations, )

U.S. Immigration and Customs

)

Enforcement,

)

)

ELAINE C. DUKE

)

Acting Secretary of the

)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, )

)

Respondents/Defendants.)

______________________________________)

Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS

AMENDED ORDER September 26, 2017

Saris, Chief U.S.D.J.

Having considered Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal and Memorandum

in Support Thereof, after hearing, the Court holds that this is

a proper case for the issuance of an order to maintain the

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 17 Filed 09/26/17 Page 2 of 2

status quo until the Court determines whether it has jurisdiction. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 290 (1947). A briefing schedule has been established.
Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from removing or causing the removal from the United States of all Plaintiffs named in the Court’s original Order (Docket No. 14, dated September 26, 2017), and Heru Kurniawan and Deetje Patty, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated, at any time, in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender.’ All such removals now pending are hereby stayed and shall not proceed until further order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS

.

Patti B. Saris

Chief U.S. District Judge

 
 ---~

_,

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 28 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 23 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

~ LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
~v.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al., Respondents/Defendants.

RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT'S ORDER Pursuant to the Court's Amended Order of September 27, 2017 [Dkt. No. 21],
Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully renew their request for emergency clarification that the individuals set forth in the table below, newly added as named Petitioners/Plaintiffs in this action, are subject to the same injunctive relief as ordered in the Court's Amended Order of September 26, 2017 [Dkt. No. 17].
The Court's September 27,2017 Amended Order [Dkt. No. 21] denied Petitioners'/Plaintiffs' previous emergency motion for clarification [Dkt. No. 18], which sought to extend temporary injunctive relief to class members who were not named Petitioners/Plaintiffs. That Order further provided that the motion was "[d]enied without prejudice to filing an amended complaint with allegations specific to each plaintiff/putative class member. Alternatively, plaintiffs may confer with the government to negotiate a stand-still with respect to all participants in 'Operation Indonesian Surrender."'
In the morning of September 28, 2017, counsel for Petitioners/Plaintiffs sent a proposal for a stand-still agreement to counsel for the Respondents/Defendants. No response has yet been received. In the meantime, Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed a First Amended Class
4815-0577-9793.3

._·

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 28 Filed 09/29/17 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 23 Filed 09/28/17 Page 2 of 3

Petition/Complaint [Dkt. No. 22], which adds allegations specific to each of the individuals listed in the table set forth below. This list of individuals does not cover all remaining members of the putative class, but, upon information and belief, does cover all putative class members with imminent removal dates within the next two weeks.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court clarify that the following individuals, all of whom are now named Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all of whom have imminent departure dates as set forth below, are subject to the same injunctive relief as ordered in the Court's Amended Order of September 26, 2017 [Dkt. No. 17]:

Name ANTOUW,Roy WALANDOW, Debby BUDIHARDJO, Arnold BUDIHARDJO, Virake EMAN, Michael MAMBO, Greace MAMBO, Sonny PANJAITAN, Eddy PENTURY, Christian RIMPER, Hesti SINAGA, Linaria

Scheduled Departure Date October 7, 2017 October 7, 2017 October 4, 2017 October 4, 2017 October 5, 2017 October 5, 2017 October 5, 2017 October 7, 2017 October 11, 2017
November 6, 2017 October 7, 20 17

4815-0577-9793.3

Respectfully Submitted,
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
By Their Attorneys,
Is/ W Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101
-2-

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND STAY OF REMOVAL
Petitioners/Plaintiffs are Christian Indonesian nationals who have resided in the United States for many years. They have been subject to final orders of removal for years, but the government permitted them to reside in the community under Orders of Supervision through a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender.” The government appears to have discontinued that program, but instead of allowing the program participants time to seek the immigration relief potentially available to them, the government is ordering them to report immediately to immigration field offices with tickets to Indonesia. Two Petitioners/Plaintiffs, married couple Freddy and Poppy Sombah, whose circumstances were detailed yesterday in the

1
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 4
Manchester Union Leader, are scheduled for removal this Wednesday, September 27, 2017. See Shawne K. Wickham, “Somersworth man: ‘DACA saved me, but my parents are facing deportation’,” Manchester Union Leaders (Sept. 24, 2017), available at http://www.unionleader.com/Somersworth-man:-DACA-saved-me,-but-my-parents-are-facingdeportation. They, and the class of similarly situated individuals they seek to represent in this representative action, now face imminent removal to Indonesia. Under current conditions, which are documented by authoritative sources, Petitioners/Plaintiffs face a significant risk of persecution and torture in Indonesia on account of their Christian faith. The government’s haste in seeking to remove them without affording them an opportunity to reopen their immigration cases deprives them of due process and violates U.S. law, which, inter alia, prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where they would face a likelihood of persecution or torture.
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Stay of Removal that bars Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs until an appropriate process has determined whether, in light of current conditions and circumstances, they are entitled to mandatory protection from removal on any valid grounds.
2. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek a TRO and Stay of Removal to maintain the status quo and bar Respondents from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs—and the putative class of similarly situated individuals that that they seek to represent—before this Court has had an opportunity to consider and rule on the merits of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ contemporaneously filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
2
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 4
3. Counsel for Petitioners/Plaintiffs conferred with the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, explaining the nature of the relief sought and seeking concurrence, but none was agreed-to.
4. Petitioners/Plaintiffs further request that the TRO and Stay of Removal against Respondents/Defendants be extended to protect the entire putative class of similarly situated individuals that Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek to represent, which Petitioner/Plaintiffs define in their contemporaneously filed Class Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus and Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief as: “All Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender.’” Upon information and belief, Petitioners/Plaintiffs estimate that approximately 70 individuals fit this description.
5. Petitioners/Plaintiffs also request that Respondents be ordered to turn over the names of all Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender.”
6. If the Court requires additional argument beyond the contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law in Support of this Motion, Petitioners/Plaintiffs also respectfully request the Court schedule a hearing on or before Tuesday, September 26, 2017, as Petitioners/Plaintiffs Freddy and Poppy Sombah are scheduled to be deported to Indonesia on Wednesday, September 27, 2017.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
3
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 4

A. Grant this Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal before Wednesday, September 27, 2017;
B. Enter the Proposed Order Granting Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal; and
C. Grant such other and further relief as justice may require. Respectfully Submitted, PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS By Their Attorneys,

/s/ W. Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101

Date: September 25, 2017

Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on September 25, 2017, and will be transmitted by electronic mail to the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero

4
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 2-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’/PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND STAY OF REMOVAL
Having considered Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal and Memorandum in Support Thereof, and it appearing that this is a proper case for its issuance to maintain the status quo, this Court ALLOWS that Emergency Motion and ORDERS this Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal as follows:
1. Respondents/Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from removing or causing the removal from the United States of Petitioners/Plaintiffs or any member of the putative class “All Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will

1
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 2-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 2

be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender.’” All such removals now pending are hereby stayed and shall not proceed. 2. Respondents/Defendants are required to produce to Plaintiffs/Petitioners, within five (5) days, the names of all Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” and program descriptions, criteria, or policy memoranda relating to “Operation Indonesian Surrender”; 3. Respondents/Defendants are hereby enjoined and prohibited from transferring or causing the transfer of Petitioners/Plaintiffs or any member of the putative class, “All Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender’” outside of the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office. This Order shall remain in full force and effect for fourteen (14) days pending further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________

____________________________ United States District Court

2
4818-0261-1792.1

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF REMOVAL Petitioners/Plaintiffs are Christian Indonesian nationals who have resided in the United States for many years. They have been subject to final orders of removal for years, but the government permitted them to reside in the community under Orders of Supervision through a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender.” The government discontinued that program, but instead of allowing the program participants time to seek the immigration relief potentially available to them, the government is ordering them to report immediately to immigration field offices with tickets to Indonesia. Two Petitioners/Plaintiffs, married couple Freddy and Poppy Sombah, whose circumstances were detailed yesterday in the Manchester Union Leader, are scheduled for removal this Wednesday, September 27, 2017. See Shawne K. Wickham,
1
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 5
“Somersworth man: ‘DACA saved me, but my parents are facing deportation’”, Manchester Union Leaders (Sept. 24, 2017), available at http://www.unionleader.com/Somersworth-man:DACA-saved-me,-but-my-parents-are-facing-deportation. They, and the class of similarly situated individuals they seek to represent in this representative action, now face imminent removal to Indonesia. Under current conditions, which are documented by authoritative sources, Petitioners/Plaintiffs face a significant risk of persecution and torture in Indonesia on account of their Christian faith. The government’s haste in seeking to remove them without affording them an opportunity to reopen their immigration cases deprives them of due process and violates U.S. law, which, inter alia, prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where they would face a likelihood of persecution or torture.
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek a Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal that bars Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs until an appropriate process has determined whether, in light of current conditions and circumstances, or any other valid basis, they are entitled to mandatory protection from removal.
2. For the reason set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek a Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Removal to prevent the irreparable harm that would result from Defendants/Respondents removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs—and the putative class of similarly situated individuals that that they seek to represent—from the United States before this Court has had an opportunity to consider and rule on the merits of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ contemporaneously filed Class Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus and Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
3. Petitioners/Plaintiffs specifically request that this injunctive relief apply to all the members of the class which they have defined as: “All Indonesian nationals within the
2
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 5
jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender.’” On information and belief, Petitioners/Plaintiffs estimate that approximately 70 individuals fit this description.
4. Petitioners/Plaintiffs also request that Respondents/Defendants be ordered to turn over the names of all Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender.”
5. Petitioners/Plaintiffs stand ready to present argument and/or evidence in support of this motion if helpful to the court’s determination.
For the reason set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction and stay of removal that would bar Respondents from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs or any other members of the putative class until an appropriate process has determined whether, in light of current conditions and circumstances in Indonesia, or on any other valid basis, they are entitled to protection from removal. Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request the opportunity to supplement their Memorandum of Law in Support of this Motion in reply to any opposition offered by Respondents/Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; B. Issue a preliminary injunction and stay of removal, temporarily prohibiting Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ removal, and that of all putative class members, until this action is decided;
3
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 5
C. Order Respondents/Defendants to provide Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of all class members and copies of their A files (immigration files) and program descriptions, criteria, or policy memoranda relating to “Operation Indonesian Surrender”;
D. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members to Indonesia without first providing them with sufficient opportunity to establish that, in light of current conditions and the likelihood that they would suffer persecution or torture if removed to Indonesia, or any other valid grounds, they are entitled to protection against such removal, and enter a writ of mandamus for that same purpose;
E. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members to Indonesia until they have been given sufficient time to enable them to file motions to reopen their removal orders and seek stays of removal from the immigration court; specifically, each member of the petitioner class should be given four months to file their motions to reopen, starting when the government provides a copy of the individual’s A-file and the Record of Proceedings to the Petitioner’s immigration counsel (i.e., counsel who has filed a G-28 form or equivalent) or, if the Petitioner does not have counsel, to the Petitioner; a petitioner who does file a motion to reopen will be protected by the stay until such time as the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adjudicate the motion, and the Petitioner has had the opportunity to file a petition for review and seek a stay with the Court of Appeals.
F. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from transferring Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members outside of the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office;
G. Order Respondents/Defendants to release all Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members from detention absent an individualized determination by an impartial adjudicator that their detention is justified based on danger or flight risk, which cannot be sufficiently addressed by alternative conditions of release and/or supervision;
H. Grant such other further relief as is just and equitable.
4
4818-0261-1792.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 5 of 5

Respectfully Submitted, PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS By Their Attorneys,

/s/ W. Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101

Date: September 25, 2017

Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on September 25, 2017, and will be transmitted by electronic mail to the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero

5
4818-0261-1792.1

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND STAY OF REMOVAL
I. INTRODUCTION Petitioners/Plaintiffs are Christian Indonesian nationals who have resided in the United
States for many years. While they all ultimately became subject to final orders of removal, the
United States permitted them to continue to live and work here under orders of supervision
through a program called “Operation Indonesia Surrender.” The government recently appears to
have discontinued that program without notice, but, rather than allow the program participants
the opportunity to reopen their immigration cases to seek the immigration relief that may be
available to them now (years after the immigration courts first ruled on their requests to remain
1
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 17
in the United States), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is ordering them to report to immigration field offices with tickets to Indonesia within 30 days. Accordingly, they, and the class of similarly situated individuals they seek to represent in this representative action, now face imminent removal to Indonesia.
Indeed, two Petitioners/Plaintiffs, married couple Freddy and Poppy Sombah, whose circumstances were detailed yesterday on the front page of the Manchester Union Leader, are scheduled for removal this Wednesday, September 27, 2017. See Affidavit of Sydney Pritchett (“Pritchett Aff.”), Ex. A, Shawne K. Wickham, “Somersworth man: ‘DACA saved me, but my parents are facing deportation’,” Manchester Union Leaders (Sept. 24, 2017), available at http://www.unionleader.com/Somersworth-man:-DACA-saved-me,-but-my-parents-are-facingdeportation. The circumstances of the denial of the due process to the Sombahs is further detailed by their immigration counsel William P. Joyce, a former immigration judge, who describes how their treatment does not comport with reasonable timelines or due process, especially for those, like the Sombahs, who have no criminal records, pose no threat to national security, and otherwise have no reason to be removed on a timetable that has effectively foreclosed what would be a meritorious claim for relief. Affidavit of William P. Joyce, Esq. (“Joyce Aff.”) at ¶ 6.
If removed to Indonesia under current conditions, Petitioners/Plaintiffs face a significant risk of persecution and torture, conditions which have been heightened since the start of Operation Indonesian Surrender because of the recent increase in the threats posed by the increase in anti-Christian extremism in that country. More importantly, conditions have changed since the final orders of removal were issued to Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the rest of the putative class members. In most cases, it has been over a decade since their removal orders became final.
2
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 17
Yet the government has failed to provide Petitioners/Plaintiffs (and the putative class they seek to represent) with a fair opportunity to demonstrate their entitlement to protection from removal in light of the changed circumstances. The government’s haste in seeking to remove them without affording them that opportunity deprives them of due process and violates U.S. law, which prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where they would face a likelihood of persecution or torture. II. BACKGROUND In 2009 and 2010, ICE in New England began a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender” to induce Christian Indonesian nationals who were residing under a final order of removal to identify themselves to ICE in exchange for the ability to remain in the United States under an Order of Supervision. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. C, Jeanne Shaheen, “Another View – Jeanne Shaheen: Trump should let NH’S Indonesian community stay,” Manchester Union Leader (Sept. 10, 2017), available at http://www.unionleader.com/Another-View-JeanneShaheen-Trump-should-let-NHs-Indonesian-community-stay-0911201.
As described by an ICE public affairs official, this was a “humanitarian effort” involving Indonesian churches. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. B, Jennifer Keefe, “ICE Seeks Surrender of Illegal Immigrants,” Foster’s Daily Democrat (Sept. 10, 2010) (“‘The whole purpose is bringing folks out of the shadows and saying listen, we’ll work with you. They’re hiding in fear and we don’t want that - no one wants that.’”), available at http://www.fosters.com/article/20100901/GJNEWS_01/709019921. ICE worked with pastors in the Indonesian Christian churches, such as Rev. Sandra Pontoh of the Maranatha Indonesian United Church of Christ, to help identify “upstanding” members of the community to participate
3
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 17
in this program. Affidavit of Rev. Sandra Pontoh (“Pontoh Aff.”) at ¶ 5. Id. Individuals with criminal records were not eligible for the program. Id. at ¶ 6.
More than 100 Christian Indonesians in New England voluntarily elected to participate in the program offered by ICE and received Orders of Supervision. Id. Such Orders required the participants, for example, to report to ICE at any interval ICE deemed appropriate, submit to medical or psychiatric exams at ICE request, not travel outside New England without notifying ICE of the dates and places of travel, and submit any “information under oath about nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities” that ICE requested. In 2012, the program was further limited to individuals with U.S. citizen spouses or children and those with health conditions, and approximately 70 individuals remained in the program after that criteria was imposed. Pontoh Aff. ¶ 11. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reasonably believed that in setting out this clear criteria, ICE had reached a settled determined that those with U.S. citizen children or spouses satisfied program requirements and would not need to fear deportation; that approach continued for the next five years, further indicating a settled position by ICE. They relied on these Orders of Supervision, generally abided by their conditions, and continued to be productive and law abiding members of their respective communities, including paying taxes and otherwise behaving much like citizens of this country, all while complying with ICE monitoring requirements. Pontoh Aff. ¶ 7.
In June 2017, ICE advised the community that it would begin issuing denials of Applications to Stay Removal and/or Notices of Revocation of Release to Indonesian Christians who were participants in the program. Pontoh Aff. ¶ 12. The change in policy came as a shock to the community. Id. Until then, Indonesians with final orders had been living at large, for years, with few restrictions apart from regular reporting requirements. Law abiding individuals who
4
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 5 of 17
have been fully compliant with their conditions of supervision suddenly found themselves facing orders to return to ICE within 30 days with tickets back to Indonesia, a country where they will
surely face severe persecution, without warning about this change and a lack of an opportunity to
seek any relief in the form of motions to reopen. Id. Persecution of Christian minorities in Indonesia has been well documented, as the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recognized, even since the beginning of Operation Indonesian Surrender:
Panoto is a Christian from Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. According to the IJ’s decision, Panoto testified that she experienced persecution as an Indonesian Christian and attributed the following incidents to her religious identity. On Christmas Eve in 2000, a member of Panoto’s congregation found a black box outside their church. Police officers determined that the item was a bomb and removed it before it could detonate. Panoto testified that local authorities did not investigate the event further. Approximately six months later, in June 2001, Panoto was riding on a ferry boat when it was hijacked by Muslim extremists. Once aboard, the hijackers shouted for the Christian passengers to come forward. Panoto witnessed the militants slit an elderly Christian woman’s throat, killing her. One extremist then yanked Panoto by the hair and slapped her, commanding that she state her faith. Panoto did not reply, and just as he was about to attack her, another hijacker called him away. Panoto v. Holder, 770 F.3d 43, 45 (2014) (granting petition for review and vacating order of
removal). Due process requires that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs receive an opportunity to have their
claims to protection from this kind of persecution considered in light of current conditions, not
the conditions that existed at the time their removal orders were first issued, which in many cases is now more than a decade ago. And substantive U.S. law forbids their removal into probable
persecution and torture. A stay is imperative to preserve the status quo and give Petitioners/Plaintiffs an opportunity to present their claims to an appropriate tribunal for a fresh
adjudication of the legality of their deportation to Indonesia. To that end, this court may issue a
5
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 6 of 17
preliminary injunction prior to ruling on class certification. See Newberg on Class Actions § 4:30 & fn. 8.50 (5th ed.); Rodriguez v. Providence Community Corrections, Inc., 2015 WL
9239821, *6 (M.D. Tenn. 2015) (“‘[A] district court may, in its discretion, award appropriate
classwide injunctive relief prior to a formal ruling on the class certification issue based upon either a conditional certification of the class or its general equity powers.’” (quoting Thomas v.
Johnston, 557 F. Supp. 879, 917 (W.D. Tex. 1983)).
III. LEGAL STANDARD In considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, district courts in this Circuit
look to: “(i) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits of its claims; (ii) whether and to what extent the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld; (iii) the balance
of hardships as between the parties; and (iv) the effect, if any, that an injunction (or the withholding of one) may have on the public interest.” Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Harnett, 731 F.3d 6,
9 (1st Cir. 2013); W. Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co.-Puerto Rico, 748 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2014)
(“Whether a mandatory preliminary injunction should issue typically depends on the exigencies of the situation, taking into account [the] four familiar factors”).
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits. It often happens that this purpose is furthered by preservation of the status quo, but not always. If the currently existing status quo itself is causing one of the parties irreparable injury, it is necessary to alter the situation so as to prevent the injury, either by returning to the last uncontested status quo between the parties, Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories, 207 F.2d 190 (9 Cir. 1953), by the issuance of a mandatory injunction, see 7 Moore's Federal Practice P65.04(1), or by allowing the parties to take proposed action that the court finds will minimize the irreparable injury. The focus always must be on prevention of injury by a proper order, not merely on preservation of the status quo. Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 1974). Courts may grant mandatory preliminary injunctions where “the exigencies of the situation demand such
relief.” Massachusetts Coal. of Citizens with Disabilities v. Civil Def. Agency & Office of
6
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 7 of 17
Emergency Preparedness of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 649 F.2d 71, n. 7 (1st Cir. 1981) (denying motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction); Robert Haig, 3d Bus. & Comm’l Litig. in Fed. Cts. § 17:26 (2011) (“Nonetheless, the court may still grant a mandatory preliminary injunction when necessary to protect the movant from irreparable harm and to preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision.”). IV. ARGUMENT
A. PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THEIR CLAIMS THAT THEIR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL IS UNLAWFUL AND VIOLATES DUE PROCESS
Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ proposed class action does not challenge the underlying order of removal before this Court, but, rather, seeks to vindicate Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ right to fairly and fully seek protection against religious persecution through the filings of motions to reopen with the Immigration Court and/or Board of Immigration Appeals. Were Respondents/Defendants to proceed with removal prior to such an opportunity, they would do so in violation of the procedural due process rights guaranteed to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and in contravention to the U.S.’s own treaty and statutory obligations not to remove individuals to nations where they would face torture or persecution. Enjoining such removal until Petitioners/Plaintiffs can file their motions to reopen—particularly in light of ICE’s previous policies under Operation Indonesian Surrender—will prevent these violations.
The Due Process clause guarantees fair procedures prior to deprivations of life, liberty, or property, including removal from the United States. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”). Respondents’/Defendants’ efforts to remove these individuals prior to consideration of the changed country conditions are eviscerating their opportunity to be heard about current conditions and are jeopardizing their life and liberty. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1)(A)
7
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 8 of 17
& 1158(a)(1) (authorizing asylum for refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of, among other classes, religion). Removing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs on an expedited basis and without giving them this opportunity violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Due to the fact that Operation Indonesian Surrender began in 2009 and 2010, there has been no presentation about the conditions in the intervening near-decade, and, for most Petitioners/Plaintiffs, original adjudications were conducted more than ten years ago. Most, if not all, of the Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ initial requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT were denied prior to that time. There is no indication that ICE considered or assessed the individualized risks of religious persecution facing the participants as part of the Operation Indonesian Surrender program. Instead, ICE engaged in a policy which systematically indicated to Petitioners/Plaintiffs that they could safely raise their families, deepen their roots, and defer the costly and seemingly unnecessary efforts to reopen their removal proceedings. Given their reliance upon the program, Petitioners/Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to be heard with regard to the changed conditions in Indonesia they will face upon return and, correspondingly, how those changed conditions affect the reasonableness of their longstanding, universal fear of religious persecution. See, e.g. Marsadu v. Holder, 748 F.3d 55, 58 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (A “well-founded fear of persecution” is demonstrated by evidence establishing a “reasonable likelihood” that the Petitioner/Plaintiff will face persecution, “provided that his fears are subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.”).
Changed country conditions can serve as a strong basis for reopening an immigration case. Joyce Aff. at ¶ 14. see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (excepting motions to reopen filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals from numerical and time limits if
8
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 9 of 17
filed to “reapply for asylum or withholding of removal based on changed conditions… if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.”); Id. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i) (same). The Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ removal orders predate significant deterioration in Indonesia and the increasing danger for Christians that has come in part from the rise of the so-called “Islamic State” in Indonesia. This was illustrated by an attack in 2016 in Jakarta, the area of Indonesia from which many of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs escaped to come to the U.S. As reported by the U.S. Department of State: “on January 14, 2016, terrorists using guns and explosives attacked near the Sarinah Plaza in Central Jakarta, killing four civilians, including a foreigner, and injuring 17 others.” Pritchett Aff., Ex. D, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Information: Indonesia (Apr. 17, 2017), available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html; see also Pritchett Aff., Ex. G, Jonathan Egmonth, “Islamist Intolerance Poses a Growing Threat to Indonesia’s Minorities,” TIME (Apr. 20, 2016), available at http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslimislamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-hardliners/. See also Pritchett Aff., Ex. H, Krithika Varagur “Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling,” Foreign Policy (Feb 14, 2017), available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has also identified “respect for minority rights and freedom of religion” as the primary issue for Indonesia in the September 2016 Human Rights’ Compilation Report. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. I, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report Universal Periodic Review: 3rd Cycle, 27th Session - Indonesia, September 2016, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/59158ed24.html. The extraordinary danger Petitioners/Plaintiffs
9
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 10 of 17
face now therefore presents a new set of facts that entitle them to a new fair process for resolution. Joyce Aff. at ¶ 5.
Respondents’/Defendants’ actions are impeding the orderly and fair operation of the immigration process. In addition to changed country conditions, Petitioners/Plaintiffs may have multiple bases for reopening their removal cases, including recent attainment of eligibility for immediate relative status (such as marriage to a U.S. citizen or a child’s attainment of the age of twenty-one), ineffective assistance of counsel, or extraordinary circumstances, each of which must be carefully adjudicated by an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Immigration cases are notoriously complex and fact-specific and the consequences to the immigrant can be even more severe than a criminal case. Attorneys need time to visit clients, interview them, gather documents, marshal evidence, and draft pleadings. This is not always straightforward. For example, changed country conditions are, for the purpose of a motion to reopen, measured by the “evidence presented at the initial adjudication with newly proffered evidence.” Marsadu, 748 F.3d at 58. If such evidence “demonstrate[s] an intensification or deterioration” of country conditions, the case is reopened. Id. To surmount this exacting legal standard, the Plaintiffs/Petitioners must have access to their complete immigration files so as to analyze the evidence of country conditions considered in each case and marshal appropriate evidence of changed circumstances.1 Some of these files—such as transcripts from Immigration Judges or Board of Immigration Appeals decisions—may be decades old and take several weeks to obtain. Accordingly, in the mere weeks since the apparent revocation of Operation Indonesian
1 In addition to serving as a basis for reopening, such evidence may also permit the Plaintiffs/Petitioners to reapply for asylum, even if their initial applications were procedurally barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (providing that applications for asylum must be filed within one year of an applicant’s arrival). The statues and regulations, for instance, provide exemptions from the one-year bar due to “changed circumstances which materially affect… eligibility”, id. § 1158(a)(2)(C), and excuse reasonable days in reapplying if the applicant previously maintained status, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iv). See, e.g., Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78, 85-91 (1st Cir. 2009).
10
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 11 of 17
Surrender, many or most Petitioners/Plaintiffs and their immigration counsel (where such counsel have been retained) have not had sufficient time to prepare and file motions to reopen. Due process requires that Respondents/Defendants afford Petitioners/Plaintiffs a meaningful chance to demonstrate that substantive immigration law forbids their current removal.
In addition to changed country conditions, Petitioners/Plaintiffs may have other grounds for reopening their removal cases such including recent attainment of eligibility for immediate relative status (such as marriage to a U.S. citizen or a child’s attainment of the age of twentyone), ineffective assistance of counsel, or extraordinary circumstances, each of which must be carefully adjudicated by an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Respondents/Defendants may claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this due process claim in light of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which bars “jurisdiction over a decision to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.” But this case does not seek to challenge the removal order; rather, it challenges the condition of the custody, i.e., the Order of Supervision, which was abruptly ended without allowing for the assertion of remedies available under immigration law. Challenging a condition of custody by habeas is not a challenge to the underlying removal order. Ali v. Napolitano, Civ. No. 12-cv-11384-FDS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104964, *10-13 (July 26, 2013) (Saylor, J.).
Finally, this court, may, additionally, issue a stay of the removals of fourteen days to permit its own consideration of the issues presented, as a federal court always retains jurisdiction to consider its own jurisdiction. Valentin v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001) (“the court enjoys broad authority to order discovery, consider extrinsic evidence, and hold
11
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 12 of 17
evidentiary hearings in order to determine its own jurisdiction.”); Kumar v. Gonzales, No. 07CV-003, 2007 WL 708628, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007) (order staying proceedings until jurisdiction decided in federal habeas case).
Earlier this summer, another district court in Michigan facing a similar issue as presented here – a habeas class action on behalf of Christians facing deportation to a nation where antiChristian persecution has increased due to the rise of the “Islamic State” and where plaintiffs were being removed before they had a chance to file for motions to reopen on the basis, inter alia, of changed country conditions – granted such injunctive relief. Hamama v. Adducci, No. 17-CV-11910, 2017 WL 2684477, at *3 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2017) (“the Court stays the Government’s execution of Petitioners' final orders of removal pending the Court’s determination regarding whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. The stay extends to Respondent Adducci, Field Office Director for the Detroit District of ICE, and any other federal officials and personnel involved in the removal process.”).
B. PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT EMERGENCY RELIEF i. Harm to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is highly likely, grievous, and irreparable.
Harm is irreparable only if no adequate legal remedy exists. Foxboro Co. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 805 F.2d 34, 36 (1st Cir.1986) (“We do not find irreparable injury where only money is at stake....”); see also Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1996) (an injury is “irreparable” if it is “not accurately measurable or adequately compensable by money damages”). The harm that will be suffered by Petitioners/Plaintiffs if this Court does not grant preliminary injunctive relief is evident: while different Petitioners/Plaintiffs have different avenues for immigration relief, depending on their immigration histories, they all face a significant risk of persecution and torture if they are removed to Indonesia. Pontoh Aff. ¶ 3.
12
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 13 of 17
Religious minorities (including Christians at approximately 12% of the population) continue to face harassment, intimidation, and violence from militant Islamists, government authorities, and security forces in Indonesia. Conditions for Christians have intensified since 2015. See “Indonesia” Human Rights Watch, available at https://www.hrw.org/asia/indonesia.
The Setara Institute, a Jakarta-based nongovernmental organization that monitors religious freedom, reported an increase in acts of religious intolerance from 236 in 2015 to 270 in 2016, while religious freedom violations rose from 197 to 208. Islam Defenders Front (FPI) took responsibility for 17 incidents of violence against Ahmadiyah and Christian congregations. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. J, Andreas Harsono, “Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat: Police, Militant Islamists Implicated in Religious Freedom Abuses” Human Rights Watch Dispatch, (Feb. 2, 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesiasreligious-minorities-under-threat
In addition to targeted acts of violence by militant groups, more than half of the incidents of religious intolerance – 140 – implicate government entities, including local government administrations and police. A proposed religious rights protection bill, expected to go before parliament by the end of 2017, would reduce rights of religious minorities like disallowing construction of houses of worship and creating a more burdensome test for proving blasphemy. Religious Rights Bill, available at https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/supporting_resources/ religious_rights_protection_bill_20170720.pdf. Local police forces are giving in to FPI, Islamic Jihad Front, the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, and other “intolerant groups” who want to restrict expression of minority religious groups. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. K, U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for 2016, available at https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/268976.pdf. In a city in West Java, all 29
13
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 14 of 17
Christian churches have been forcibly shut down and some destroyed. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. F, “In Religion’s Name Abuses against Religious Minorities in Indonesia,” Human Rights Watch (Feb. 28, 2013) available at https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/02/28/religions-name/abusesagainst-religious-minorities-indonesia.
Further, the blasphemy law has been used to prosecute more non-Muslims than ever before, including the prosecution of Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Purnama (a Christian) for making statements about Islamist militant groups and insulting the Quran. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. K, U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for 2016, available at https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/268976.pdf . The Ahok verdict included Quran verses and a call to elect only Muslim leaders. Pritchett Aff., Ex. L, Andreas Harsono, “Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism,” Human Rights Watch Dispatch (May 10, 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesiascourts-have-opened-door-fear-and-religious-extremism. Other interpretations of the verses include warning Muslims against having Jews and Christians as allies, friends, or leaders, “meaning that Muslims should not vote for a Christian”. See Pritchett Aff., Ex. M, Sidney Jones, “Indonesia’s Illiberal Turn: After the Ahok Case,” Foreign Affairs (May 26, 2017), available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/indonesia/2017-05-26/indonesias-illiberal-turn.
Unless these facts and others like these are considered before removal, the Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ rights will be violated.
ii. Class-wide emergency relief is necessary. Approximately 70 individuals are currently remaining in Operation Indonesian Surrender. Pontoh Aff. ¶ 11. It has been difficult to get firm detailed information on each and every one of those participants, immigration law is complex, and each has a different immigration history and
14
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 15 of 17
different set of circumstances relevant to their claims against removal. Variation in those histories will mean there is variation in what precise bases for immigration relief is applicable, but each and every one of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the putative class they seek to represent faces grave danger in Indonesia, and is entitled to a meaningful chance to raise those claims and have them heard.
C. THE BALANCE OF HARMS AND PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGH HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF EMERGENCY RELIEF.
The balance of harms and public interest weigh strongly in favor of granting emergency relief. No discernible harm will accrue to the government from allowing Plaintiffs/Petitioners to seek the relief to which they are entitled. It is a remedy that Respondents/Defendants could easily have provided by ending the program in an orderly manner, rather than, as in the case of Petitioners/Plaintiffs Sombah, denying their Stay on September 18, 2017, and asking them to report on September 25, 2017, with a plane ticket to Indonesia for two days later. Joyce Aff. at ¶ 6. There is no possible way that a motion to reopen can reasonably be prepared and submitted on that timeline, and as such, their right to seek immigration relief to which they may be entitled will be extinguished if they are removed as planned. Id. at ¶ 6.
It is hard to identify any countervailing harm to the government or to the public interest. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent were invited by the government to voluntarily participate in Operation Indonesian Surrender. Many were specifically selected because they were deemed to be “upstanding” members of the community. They are law abiding members of their communities, not criminals, and they have consistently complied with ICE’s directions pursuant to the Orders of Supervision. Thus, there are no exigent circumstances to justify the government’s current rush to deport them to a country that is no longer their home and that, in fact, is quite dangerous for them. They have lived here peacefully and compliantly for
15
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 16 of 17

many years. There is no harm in allowing them to stay a few months longer to ensure that they are afforded the due process the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees them before a final decision is made regarding their removal.

V. CONCLUSION Petitioners/Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that their Fifth
Amendment rights are being violated by Respondents/Defendants’ actions in effectively blocking their ability to seek reopening of their immigration proceedings based on changed country conditions and/or other applicable bases. If they are not allowed more time for this process, they will face irreparable harm. Accordingly, a Temporary Restraining Order and Stay of Removal should be entered on their behalf, and preliminary injunctive relief should be granted.
Respectfully Submitted, PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS By Their Attorneys,

Date: September 25, 2017

/s/ W. Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101
Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com

16
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4 Filed 09/25/17 Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on September 25, 2017, and are being transmitted by electronic mail to the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.
/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero
17
4847-9897-9664.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 105
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

AFFIDAVIT OF SYDNEY PRITCHETT I, Sydney Pritchett, under oath, depose and say as follows:

1. I am an associate with the law firm of Nixon Peabody LLP, attorneys of record for Petitioners/Plaintiffs. I am admitted to practice in the District of Massachusetts.

2. Attached hereto, at the exhibits listed below, are true and correct copies of the following materials:

A. Shawne K. Wickham, “Somersworth man: ‘DACA saved me, but my parents are facing deportation’,” Manchester Union Leader (Sept. 24, 2017), available at http://www.unionleader.com/Somersworth-man:-DACA-saved-me,-but-myparents-are-facing-deportation;

4818-4380-0912.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 105

B. Jennifer Keefe, “ICE seeks surrender of illegal immigrants,” Foster’s Daily Democrat, (Sept. 1, 2010), available at http://www.fosters.com/article/20100901/GJNEWS_01/709019921;
C. Jeanne Shaheen, “Another View – Jeanne Shaheen: Trump should let NH’S Indonesian community stay,” Manchester Union Leader (Sept. 10, 2017), available at http://www.unionleader.com/Another-View-Jeanne-ShaheenTrump-should-let-NHs-Indonesian-community-stay-09112017;
D. U.S. Department of State, International Travel Country Reports, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html;
E. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Indonesia,” 2017 Annual Report, available at http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Indonesia.2017.pdf;
F. Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend, Pew Research Center (Apr. 11, 2017), available at http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-risemodestly-in-2015-reversing-downward-trend/;
G. Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Information: Indonesia (Apr. 17, 2017), available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html;
H. Jonathan Egmonth, “Islamist Intolerance Poses a Growing Threat to Indonesia’s Minorities,” TIME (Apr. 20, 2016), available at http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslim-islamist-minorities-lgbtchristians-hardliners/;
I. Krithika Varagur, “Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling,” Foreign Policy (Feb 14, 2017), available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowlycrumbling/;
J. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report Universal Periodic

4818-4380-0912.1

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 105
Review: 3rd Cycle, 27th Session - Indonesia, September 2016, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/59158ed24.html; K. Andreas Harsono, “Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat: Police, Militant Islamists Implicated in Religious Freedom Abuses,” Human Rights Watch Dispatch, (Feb. 2, 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-underthreat;
L. U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for 2016, available at https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/268976.pdf;
M. Andreas Harsono, “Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism”, Human Rights Watch Dispatch (May 10, 2017), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-doorfear-and-religious-extremism; and
N. Sidney Jones, “Indonesia’s Illiberal Turn: After the Ahok Case,” Foreign Affairs (May 26, 2017), available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/indonesia/2017-05-26/indonesiasilliberal-turn.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 25th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Sydney Pritchett_

4818-4380-0912.1

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 105
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 5 of 105

September 23. 2017 9:49PM
Somersworth man: 'DACA saved me, but my parents are facing deportation'
By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM New Hampshire Sunday News

SOMERSWORTH - In the midst of a family nightmare, Timothy Sombah still believes in the American dream.

Sombah, 29, is protected, at least for now, by the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. But his parents, who came to this country 14 years ago on tourist visas, have been ordered by immigration officials to return to their native Indonesia.

(/storyimage/UL/20170924/NEWS20/170929654/AR/0/AR-
170929654.jpg?q=100)
Timothy Sombah earned his certificate in information systems technology from Great Bay Community College. His parents, Freddy and Poppy Sombah, attended his graduation ceremony in May. (Courtesy photo)

He doesn't know how he can bear seeing his parents leave. He's their only child and the three of them have always been together.

"It's hard," he said. "I can't say how many times I've cried myself to sleep."

"But I feel like I have to be strong for them. I'm the one helping them. My parents would rather abide by the law than become

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170924&category=NEWS20&lo...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 6 of 105

fugitives, so they're just following all the protocols."

His parents have been under what Immigration and Customs Enforcement calls an "order of supervision" for some time, Sombah said. They are authorized to work, and required to check in periodically with the ICE office in Manchester.

Starting in January, they had to check in monthly.

"We thought that by going through this order of supervision, it would open up a way somehow, but it didn't," Sombah said. "And look at them now."

(/storyimage/UL/20170924/NEWS20/170929654/EP/1/1/EP-
170929654.jpg?q=100)
Timothy Sombah performs during the Christmas service at Bethel Church of God last year in Somersworth. He's also a worship leader at Next Level Church in Somersworth. (Courtesy photo)

They learned later that their former lawyer had missed a crucial deadline to file a motion to reopen their case. Just recently, on Timothy's 29th birthday, they were notified that their final appeal had been denied.

The Sombahs were told to bring airplane tickets to last month's ICE check-in.
Those tickets are for this Wednesday.

(/storyimage/UL/20170924/NEWS20/170929654/EP/1/2/EP170929654.jpg?q=100)
Poppy and Freddy Sombah, seen during a visit to Ellis Island National Museum, came to the United States in 2003 on tourist visas with their then-15-year-old son Timothy. He now has protection under DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), but his parents are being deported. (Courtesy)
Related Stories

His dad is 64, his mom 61.
Freddy and Poppy Sombah came to the

Democratic leaders, Trump reach deal on DACA (/politics/Democratic-leaders-Trump-reach-dealon-DACA-09132017)

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170924&category=NEWS20&lo...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 7 of 105

United States in 2003 on 19 Indonesians living in NH receive deportation

tourist visas with their

orders (/social/19-Indonesians-living-in-NH-

then-15-year-old son. They were Christians, and

receive-deportation-orders-09052017)

persecution against their

religious minority was rising, Sombah said. "I was little back then so I didn't really quite

understand what it was," he said.

His parents have told him that Islamic extremists sometimes interrupted church services, beating people up and halting worship. And Sombah remembers a day when large gangs attacked the Christian school he was attending.

"We were surrounded," he said. "I was able to run away."

He managed to jump aboard public transportation. "This is something that I won't ever forget ... . As soon as I got on that, I turned around and I see this ocean of people. It was crazy."

Soon after, his parents managed to gather the funds, and the paperwork, to leave. They came to New Hampshire, where they have relatives, and settled in Somersworth, which has a vibrant Indonesian community.

They felt welcome, Sombah said. "People are very nice here."

The family applied for asylum, based on religious persecution. Sombah remembers being in the courtroom when the decision was announced: "The judge said our evidence wasn't good enough."

"My heart just dropped."

In the years since, they filed appeal after appeal. Meanwhile, Sombah graduated from Dover High School and went to work to help support the family.

Last year, he earned his certification in information systems technology at Great Bay Community College. He works as a fiber network engineer for a subcontractor for Comcast, where he said co-workers have been supportive.

After the DACA program was created in 2012, the family applied for that status for Timothy. And after a rigorous process that included background checks, proof of residency and education transcripts, he was certified as a so-called Dreamer.

"Fast-forward to now ... DACA saved me, but my parents are facing deportation," he said.

Sombah said many people are misinformed about DACA and Dreamers like him.

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170924&category=NEWS20&lo...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 8 of 105
"They say we get special treatment from the government," he said.
But his family has never gotten financial aid, he said. He can't even apply for federal college aid. "Everything came out of my own pocket, out of my savings," he said.
He and his parents have work authorizations that have to be renewed every two years, he said. They all pay taxes and pay into Social Security - a benefit they'll never be able to collect.
He never expected this to happen to his family. "I thought when we came here, it would be smooth sailing. We'd apply for asylum and we would be good. But it wasn't the case."
His parents have to check in with ICE on Monday. Sombah will be at work. "If anything happens, I don't think I'll have the heart to be there and to see things go down," he said.
But he's not giving up hope. "I was brought up believing in God and that miracles do happen," he said. "I feel like if I didn't have that to believe in, I probably would have gone crazy by now."
Sombah is a worship leader at two Somersworth churches, Bethel Church of God, an Indonesian church, and Next Level Church.
Lindsey Archer often leads services with Sombah at Next Level Church. She said he's devoted to his parents.
What's happening to his family is "heartbreaking," Archer said.
"He has a lot of hope; that's just who he is. And he has a lot of faith," she said. "But of course, you can just see his heart breaking."
Her church community has been praying for the family, she said.
Archer said there's a lot of ignorance about who the Dreamers are. "These are not numbers; these aren't figures," she said. "These are people who have families, who have connections, who have built lives here.
"And ripping that away is just un-human."
Has Sombah thought about leaving with his parents? It has crossed his mind, he said. "But you know what? I think this is where I belong."
And, he said, "My parents would want me to stay and have my future here."
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170924&category=NEWS20&lo...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 9 of 105
His mother has begged him to marry his American girlfriend, so he can obtain legal status before DACA ends. But he said, "I don't think that's right. I do love her, but I feel like I want to get married on our terms, when we are ready." If he could speak with political leaders, Sombah would tell them "they really need to start working on immigration reform." "And the first step for that would be to pass the Dream Act for us Dreamers. And maybe you can do something about our parents that are taxpayers. They're not criminals; they have clean records. "Have some compassion. Have some mercy for them. Fight for them." Instead, the federal government is sending the Sombahs home. But Tim Sombah says for him, home is the United States. "I want to build a career here," he said. "I want to give back to the community." He hopes that telling his story will somehow help keep his family together. "I feel like if I fight for this, and we win this, I would have accomplished something in life," he said. "It would be good to know that my voice was heard, that the American dream is real." swickham@unionleader.com
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170924&category=NEWS20&lo...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 10 of 105
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 11 of 105
ICE seeks surrender of illegal immigrants
By JENNIFER KEEFE / jkeefe@fosters.com Posted Sep 1, 2010 at 3:15 AM
DOVER — This week, non-criminal illegal immigrants in the state who have been served a final order of removal may have an “avenue of relief,” according to a Department of Homeland Security official. Starting Monday and ending Thursday, tents set up outside an unmarked bus on the back part of the Strafford County Superior Court parking lot serve as a place illegal immigrants may go for a voluntary surrender. Harold Ort, vice president of Public Affairs for DHS and Immigration Customs Enforcement, said it’s a “humanitarian effort” between Indonesian churches throughout the state and DHS. “ICE is working with a coalition of Indonesian churches in the area about the possibility of a voluntary surrender for certain non-criminal aliens that have final orders of removal,” Ort said. Capt. Joseph DiGregorio with the Strafford County Sheriff’s office said the county is not actively participating in the effort; they are acting as a “liaison” for immigration. He said ICE asked for a centralized location to work out of and, as the courthouse parking lot isn’t under the jurisdiction of the sheriff, the county commissioner granted permission for the bus to park there. Ort said the program is not unique to New Hampshire and can be organized at the discretion of DHS field offices all over the country. For New Hampshire, the field office is located in Boston, Mass. “It’s a good program and it’s really a humanitarian effort,” he said. “The whole purpose is bringing folks out of the shadows and saying listen, we’ll work with you. They’re hiding in fear and we don’t want that — no one wants that.”
http://www.fosters.com/article/20100901/GJNEWS_01/709019921

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 12 of 105
Ort declined to offer further details about the effort, but said the church leaders will approach DHS suggesting relief for “upstanding members of the community.”
http://www.fosters.com/article/20100901/GJNEWS_01/709019921

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 13 of 105
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 14 of 105
September 10. 2017 11:33PM
Another View -- Jeanne Shaheen: Trump should let NH's Indonesian community stay
By JEANNE SHAHEEN
President Trump's decision to end the program, known as DACA, that protects young undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, has upended the lives of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers, including nearly 400 who live in New Hampshire.
But Dreamers aren’t the only ones. Immigrants from all walks of life are being slated for deportation, irrespective of their individual circumstances or value to their community.
Here in New Hampshire, our Indonesian community, who came here decades ago fleeing religious persecution, is being targeted. They’ve found jobs to support themselves, a community to call home, and a place to practice their Christian faith without fear.
But in recent days, dozens of these individuals have been told by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that they must purchase plane tickets and depart by October, and many more wait anxiously to learn their fate.
It doesn’t have to be this way. In 2009, working with these families and members of their church community, my office helped negotiate an agreement with ICE to allow them to remain in New Hampshire and obtain work permits in exchange for a pledge to regularly touch base with ICE.
Regrettably, this agreement was recently reversed by ICE and deportation orders have been served. Imagine the trauma of being told that the life you have painstakingly built will be taken away and that you could soon be separated from your loved ones and community. I’ve read heartbreaking letters from their young children, pleading that they not be separated from their parents and siblings.
Foster’s Daily Democrat spoke for the community in criticizing the government’s action as “a cruel abandonment of America’s values.” I agree.
The United States has always been a safe harbor for people being persecuted for their faith. Since the first European immigrants arrived in New England seeking religious
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170911&category=OPINION02...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 15 of 105
freedom, adherents of every creed have found sanctuary in America’s “shining city on a hill.”
The Indonesian families’ agreement, which has worked well for eight years, allowed these individuals to learn our language, find gainful employment, build their families and become integral members of our Granite State family. They pose no threat to public safety or homeland security. To the contrary, they have become our friends and neighbors. Now they face the stark reality of returning to a country where religious persecution is increasing in frequency and intensity.
The agreement reached with ICE exemplified the kind of thoughtful and nuanced consideration that should be applied in immigration cases. Unfortunately, President Trump’s executive orders have caused ICE to abandon sensible prioritization of undocumented persons.
Rather than concentrate on those with violent criminal records, the agency’s new approach makes no distinction between dangerous individuals and those legitimately seeking refuge. The agency is sweeping up vulnerable people and wrongly making them targets.
With limited resources, the public would be best served by targeting dangerous criminals.
ICE’s policy reversal has sent shockwaves of fear and panic across the nearly 2,000 Indonesian immigrants living in the Seacoast Region and is deeply unsettling to their friends and neighbors. The families’ church and community have rallied to their cause.
I’ve requested that ICE reexamine its decision with regard to these immigrants, and I’ve recently spoken with members of the Trump administration to urge them to allow these families to live their lives in peace.
The United States has a long history, across Republican and Democratic administrations alike, of exercising discretion and humane judgment in determining which immigrants to deport. It does not serve our nation’s interests to randomly and abruptly deport families living and working here peacefully.
This practice is not strategic and is disruptive to our communities. The administration’s immigration enforcement has been heavy-handed, at best, and often harmful in ways that betray our nation’s values.
There’s no question that America’s immigration system is broken, but a dragnet approach is clearly not the answer. Congress needs to work on a bipartisan basis to craft a comprehensive, permanent fix that includes a practical plan to deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who are productive members of our communities.
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170911&category=OPINION02...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 16 of 105
In the meantime, I urge the Trump administration to exercise commonsense discretion and restraint in dealing with the immigrant community, including enforcement policies that reflect our nation’s humanitarian values and ideals. Jeanne Shaheen, D-Madbury, represents New Hampshire in the United States Senate.
http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=UL&date=20170911&category=OPINION02...

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 17 of 105
EXHIBIT D

Indonesia

Page 1 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 18 of 105

travel.state.gov U.S. Passports & International Travel

Students Abroad U.S. Visa

Intercountry Adoption International Parental |
Child Abduction

Contact Us

Find U.S. Embassies & Consulates

travel.state.gov > Passports & International Travel > Country Information > Indonesia

Indonesia
Official Name: Republic of Indonesia
LAST UPDATED: APRIL 17, 2017

Print Email

Embassy Messages
More

Quick Facts
• PASSPORT VALIDITY:
6 months beyond date of arrival

• VACCINATIONS:
Suggested

• BLANK PASSPORT PAGES: • CURRENCY

Two

RESTRICTIONS FOR

ENTRY:

100,000,000 Indonesian rupiah
• TOURIST VISA REQUIRED: (approx. $7,500 USD)

No (for tourist travel under 30 days)

• CURRENCY RESTRICTIONS FOR EXIT:
100,000,000 Indonesian rupiah (approx. $7,500 USD)

Embassies and Consulates

Expand All

Destination Description

Entry, Exit & Visa Requirements

Safety and Security

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html

9/25/2017

Indonesia

Page 2 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 19 of 105

Extremists may target both official and private establishments, including hotels, bars, nightclubs, shopping areas, restaurants, and places of worship. Whether at work, pursuing daily activities, or traveling, you should be aware of your personal safety and security at all times.
On January 14, 2016, terrorists using guns and explosives attacked near the Sarinah Plaza in Central Jakarta, killing four civilians, including a foreigner, and injuring 17 others. ISIL claimed responsibility and is believed to have inspired or provided support for a handful of small-scale attacks elsewhere in Indonesia since then. In 2002, more than 200 foreign tourists and Indonesian citizens were killed in Bali’s nightclub district. Since 2002, Indonesian police and security forces have disrupted a number of terrorist cells. Police have arrested more than 1,200 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 2002 and have greatly reduced the capacity of domestic terrorist organizations, though extremists in Indonesia continue to aspire to carry out violent attacks against Indonesian and Western targets.
Demonstrations are very common in Jakarta and other cities. You should avoid demonstrations and other mass gatherings, since even those intended to be peaceful can become violent.
Currently, travel by U.S. government personnel to the provinces of Central Sulawesi and Papua is restricted to mission-essential travel that is approved in advance by the Embassy security office.
Crime: Pick-pocketing, theft, armed car-jacking, and residential break-ins are common. Avoid travelling to isolated areas late at night. Beware of your surroundings, particularly vehicles or individuals that might be following you.
Use a reputable taxi company or hire a taxi either at a major hotel or shopping center. Travelers have been robbed in taxis that have been painted to look like legitimate taxis.
Credit card fraud is a serious and growing problem in Indonesia. Avoid using credit cards when possible. Criminals have “skimmed” credit/debit cards to access and drain bank accounts. Use an ATM in a secure location and check the machine for evidence of tampering. Monitor your account statements regularly.
Tourists and Indonesians have suffered from serious illness and have even died from "drink-spiking” and drink poisoning incidents, particularly in clubs and nightspots in urban and tourist areas.
See the Department of State and the FBI pages for information on scams.
Victims of Crime: Victims of sexual assault should seek prompt medical assistance, contact the Embassy, and call the local police at 112. For a criminal investigation to be initiated by the police, the victim must make a full statement to the local police, in person.
See our webpage on help for U.S. victims of crime overseas.
We can:
• help you find appropriate medical care. • assist you in reporting a crime to the police. • contact relatives or friends with your written consent. • explain the local criminal justice process in general terms. • provide a list of local attorneys.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html

9/25/2017

Indonesia

Page 3 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 20 of 105

• provide our information on victim’s compensation programs in the U.S. • provide an emergency loan for repatriation to the United States and/or
limited medical support in cases of destitution. • help you find accommodation and arrange flights home. • replace a stolen or lost passport.
Local Laws & Special Circumstances
Health
Travel & Transportation

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html

9/25/2017

Indonesia

Page 4 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 21 of 105

Road Conditions and Safety: Traffic in Indonesia is dangerous, congested, and undisciplined. Traffic signals are frequently ignored and often in disrepair. Motor vehicles share the roads with other forms of transportation, such as pedicabs and pushcarts. Buses and trucks are often dangerously overloaded and travel at high speeds. Accidents between a car and a motorcycle are invariably viewed as the fault of the driver of the car. Consider these risks before driving your own vehicle, especially if you are unaccustomed to Indonesian road conditions. When an accident results in personal injury, Indonesian law requires both drivers to await the arrival of a police officer to report the accident.
Please refer to our Road Safety page for more information. Also, visit Indonesia's national tourist office online for road safety information.
Public Transportation: Air, ferry, and road accidents that result in fatalities, injuries, and significant damage are common. While all forms of transportation are regulated in Indonesia, oversight is spotty, maintenance may not be properly performed, and rescue and emergency capacity is limited. Indonesia has experienced several fatal plane crashes and non-fatal runway overruns in recent years. Also in recent years, several ferry accidents and a train collision resulted in dozens of fatalities and even more injuries because of over-crowding and unsafe conditions.
See our Road Safety page for more information.
Aviation Safety Oversight: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has assessed the Government of Indonesia’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation as being in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aviation safety standards for oversight of Indonesia’s air carrier operations. Further information may be found on the FAA's safety assessment page .
Since 2014, a number of private pilots have inadvertently crossed into Indonesian airspace and have been detained and paid heavy fines. If you intend to fly on private aircraft through Indonesian airspace, get correct clearances from Indonesian aviation authorities before you depart.
Maritime Safety and Security: Inter-island travel by boat or ferry can be dangerous: storms can appear quickly, vessels may be over-crowded and lack basic safety equipment, and safety standards vary between providers. A number of ferries have sunk, resulting in loss of life. The Indonesian Search and Rescue Agency records boat and ferry accidents resulting in injuries and deaths, yearly. Make sure you are satisfied with safety standards before travelling, including safety equipment and life jackets.
Piracy: Maritime piracy and other related crimes in and around Indonesian waters continue. Recent reports include thefts of valuables or cargo from boats that are in port and out at sea. Before traveling by sea, especially in the Strait of Malacca between Riau Province and Singapore, and in the waters north of Sulawesi and Kalimantan, review the current security situation with local authorities. Be vigilant, reduce opportunities for theft, establish secure areas on board, and report all incidents to the coastal and flag state authorities.
Mariners planning travel to Indonesia should also check for U.S. maritime advisories and alerts at www.marad.dot.gov/msci . Information may also be posted to the U.S. Coast Guard homeport website (https:homeport.uscg.mil), and the NGA broadcast warnings website https://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal ; select “broadcast warnings.”

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html

9/25/2017

Indonesia

Page 5 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 22 of 105

Please see Fact Sheet for this country.

Assistance for U.S. Citizens
U.S. Embassy Jakarta Jl. Medan Merdeka Selatan No. 3 - 5 Jakarta 10110, Indonesia
• Telephone:
+(62)(21) 3435-9000
• Emergency After-Hours Telephone:
+(62)(21) 3435-9000 ext. 0 (operator)
• Fax:
+(62)(21) 385-7189
• Email: JakartaACS@state.gov
• U.S. Embassy Jakarta
VIEW MORE LOCATIONS

View Larger Map
Enroll in STEP
Enrolling in this free service will allow us to better assist you in case of an emergency while you are abroad.
ENROLL
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html

9/25/2017

Indonesia

Page 6 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 23 of 105

About Us Newsroom Passport Statistics Legal Considerations

Find a U.S. Embassy or Consulate Contact Us Careers Consular Notification and Access

STAY CONNECTED
Dipnote Blog Facebook Flickr

@travelgov Youtube RSS

travel.state.gov

U.S. Passports & International Travel

Students Abroad

U.S. Visa

Intercountry Adoption

International Parental Child Abduction

Privacy Copyright & Disclaimer FOIA No FEAR Act Data Office of the Inspector General USA.gov GobiernoUSA.gov This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html

9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 24 of 105
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 25 of 105
INDONESIA
TIER 2

KEY FINDINGS
Indonesia is often characterized as a model of majority-Muslim democracy. Yet in some parts of the country, discrimination and violence against religious minorities continue, often instigated or inspired by hardline individuals and groups. The Indonesian government often intervenes when abuses arise, particularly if they involve violence; yet by many accounts, violations of the freedom of religion or belief continue to rise and/or increase in

intensity, and experts believe many incidents go unreported. Non-Muslims and non-Sunni Muslims endure ongoing difficulties obtaining official permission to build houses of worship, experience vandalism at existing houses of worship, and are subject to sometimes violent protests that interfere with their ability to practice their faith. In 2017, USCIRF again places Indonesia on its Tier 2, where it has been since 2004.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

• Urge the Indonesian government at central, provincial, and local levels to comply with the Indonesian constitution and international human rights standards by:
•	Overturning the 2008 Joint Ministerial Decree on the Ahmadiyya community and any provincial bans on Ahmadi religious practice;
•	Amending or repealing article 156(a) of the Penal Code and unconditionally releasing anyone sentenced for “deviancy,” “denigrating religion,” or “blasphemy;” and
•	Amending the 2006 Joint Regulation on Houses of Worship to allow religious communities the right to build and maintain their places of worship free from discrimination and threats;

• Offer technical assistance and guidance to the Indonesian government as it drafts legislation protecting religious freedom, as appropriate;
• Raise in public and private with Indonesian officials the need to protect Indonesia’s tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism by investigating and prosecuting individuals or groups who discriminate or incite or perpetrate acts of violence against religious communities;
• Prioritize funding for governmental, civil society, and media programs that promote religious freedom, counter extremism, build intra-faith and interfaith alliances, expand the reporting ability of human rights defenders, train

government and religious officials to mediate sectarian disputes, and enhance rule of law and build capacity for legal reform advocates, judicial officials, and parliamentarians to better fulfill Indonesia’s obligations under international human rights law; and
• Help to train Indonesian police and counterterrorism officials at all levels to better address sectarian conflict, religion-related violence, and terrorism, including violence against places of worship, through practices consistent with international human rights standards, while ensuring those officers have not been implicated in past human rights abuses pursuant to Leahy Amendment vetting procedures.

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ANNUAL REPORT 2017 www.USCIRF.gov | Media@USCIRF.gov | @USCIRF

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 26 of 105

TIER 2 INDONESIA

BACKGROUND

example, in West Papua, non-Muslims feel increasing

Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim-

pressure and discrimination from Muslims. Some

majority country: more than 87 percent of its 258

Indonesians are concerned by what they perceive is the

million people identify as Muslim. The majority of

“Arabization” or “creeping Islamization” of the country’s

Indonesia’s Muslims are Sunni, although up to three

more pluralistic form of Islam. Hardline groups such

million are Shi’a and up to 400,000 Ahmadis. Protes-

as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the country’s

tant Christians make up 7 percent of the population,

top Muslim clerical body, the Indonesian Council of

Catholics approximately 3 percent, and Hindus less

Ulema (MUI), have long held their own views of the

than 2 percent. In some parts of the country, Chris-

proper ways to practice Islam. This perspective shuns

tians or Hindus comprise

non-Sunni Muslims,

the majority, which

such as Shi’a Muslims

means that even though Muslims are the majority overall, in certain areas they are in the demographic minority. Indonesia is secular and

Tensions ran high during the last few months of the reporting period because of politically charged blasphemy accusations against Jakarta Governor
Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama.

and Ahmadis. Some Indonesians attribute this increasingly conservative, less tolerant brand of Islam to the growing influence of Saudi Arabia,

recognizes six religions:

including that coun-

Islam, Catholicism, Prot-

try’s plans to expand its

estantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. Institute for the Study of Islam and Arabic (LIPIA). Based

Smaller segments of the population practice unrec-

in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, LIPIA offers all-expense-

ognized faiths, such as Baha’ism, Sikhism, Judaism,

paid education to Indonesian students, which for some

Falun Gong, and traditional belief systems.

could lead to the opportunity to study in Saudi Arabia.

Individuals of many faiths—even beyond the six

But this Saudi-funded education adheres to strict, Salafi

officially recognized religions—have the ability to prac- Islam, which considerably differs from the style of Islam

tice, worship, and teach freely, although this varies from prevalent in Indonesia.

province to province across Indonesia’s vast archipel-

Tensions ran high during the last few months of the

ago. Some religiously diverse neighborhoods have long reporting period because of politically charged blas-

traditions of interfaith interaction and cooperation, and phemy accusations against Jakarta Governor Basuki

the government is believed to be working on legislation “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama. (For more information, see

intended to strengthen religious freedom, although the the Blasphemy section below.) Thousands of Mus-

contents are unknown. Even so, throughout its history, lims, including hardliners, accused Ahok of insulting

less tolerant attitudes have been present in Indonesia

the Qur’an and staged several protests and rallies in

and continue today in some parts of the country. For

Jakarta. The Indonesian government urged calm and

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ANNUAL REPORT 2017 www.USCIRF.gov | Media@USCIRF.gov | @USCIRF

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 27 of 105

TIER 2 INDONESIA

understanding and also respected the right of individuals to protest peacefully. Furthermore, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo ordered additional security forces to maintain public order and deter violence. Prominent Muslims, including from the two largest Muslim organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, discouraged their members from participating in protests. However, some critics blamed the new government for not doing enough to control hardline individuals and groups in the first place. At the end of the reporting period, Ahok garnered the most votes in Jakarta’s three-way gubernatorial election on February 15, 2017, but failed to secure more than 50 percent of the vote that would have prevented a second-round election in April.
In 2016, Indonesia’s independent National Human Rights Commission, Komisi Nasional Hak Asaki Manusia (Komnas HAM), continued to focus on freedom of religion or belief. In January 2017, Komnas HAM issued its findings of religious freedom violations for 2016. Komnas HAM found that some provinces, such as West Java, experience far more religious intolerance than others, and that regional government officials often are responsible for either tolerating or directly perpetrating abuses, an observation echoed by the Setara Institute, a local nongovernmental organization. In December 2016, NU echoed the findings about rising religious intolerance.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CONDITIONS 2016–2017 Forced Closures of and Violence against Religious Properties
Local authorities and hardliners often rely on the 2006 Joint Regulation on Houses of Worship to deny or restrict parishioners’ access to houses of worship. Under the 2006 regulation, houses of worship are required to obtain a list of 90 congregation members; signatures from 60 local households of a different faith; recommendations from the local religious affairs office and local Religious Harmony Forum, Forum Kerukunan Umat Beragama (FKUB); and approval from the sub-district head. The regulation provides local governments the latitude to deny permits to smaller congregations and the authority to close or tear down houses of worship built prior to 2006. Hardliners, typically those belonging to the majority faith in a particular area, cite alleged

faulty or missing permits or other regulation-related paperwork as justification to protest houses of worship or to pressure local officials to deny or revoke permissions or close the structures. At times, mob violence leads to significant property damage and displacement of affected religious communities, such as in 2015 at Christian churches in Aceh Singkil District in Aceh and at a Muslim mosque in Tolikara, Papua.
In July 2016, a mob attacked and burned down several Buddhist temples and other property in North Sumatra. In recent years, closures of and threats and attacks against Buddhist sites have occurred in other parts of the country. Reports indicated the July violence may have started when a woman of Chinese descent expressed her frustration at the loud microphone volume from a nearby mosque. Police were able to prevent some of the attacks from spreading to other structures, and authorities later detained seven individuals and named several others as suspects. Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second-largest Muslim group, called for tolerance and calm after the incident, and President Jokowi instructed the National Police to apprehend the perpetrators.
In July 2016, a mob attacked and burned down several Buddhist temples and other property in North Sumatra.
In April 2016, Muslim hardliners in Bekasi, West Java, closed the Santa Clara Catholic Church only weeks after the new building opened. The previous month, the local FKUB confirmed the validity of the church’s permit after many of these same hardliners prevented access to church construction and demanded the permit be revoked. The church’s effort to obtain the permit, which was granted in 2015 under the 2006 regulation, reportedly took nearly two decades. Despite support for the church’s construction by Bekasi’s mayor, Rahmat Effendi, critics accused the local government and police of failing to protect the Catholic church from closure.
In September 2016, hardline protestors, including from FPI, gathered to object to local authorities’ decision to renew permits for a Protestant church in Makassar.

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ANNUAL REPORT 2017 www.USCIRF.gov | Media@USCIRF.gov | @USCIRF

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 28 of 105

TIER 2 INDONESIA

Led by the protests of nearby residents who opposed the Pasar Minggu Protestant Church in South Jakarta, local officials declared in September 2016 that the church would close for lacking the proper permits. Religious Affairs Minister Lukman Hakim Saifuddin intervened to request that the local government assist the congregation in moving the church to a different location.
In November 2016, a single attacker set off an explosion at the Protestant Oikumene Church in Samarinda, East Kalimantan Province, killing a two-year-old girl and injuring three other children. Police ultimately arrested seven men in connection with the attack, all suspected of having links to or aspirations of joining the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In a separate incident in August 2016, a man attempted and failed to detonate a bomb at a Catholic church in Medan, North Sumatra. After finding a paper with an ISIS symbol in the man’s possession, police looked at possible terrorist links.
At the end of the reporting period, the Indonesian Christian Church (GKI) Yasmin in Bogor, West Java, had reportedly reached an agreement with Bogor Mayor Bima Arya Sugiarto to reopen the church. Local government officials succumbed to pressure from hardliners and suspended the church’s permit in 2008; it has remained closed despite a 2010 Supreme Court ruling ordering the church be reopened. The compromise would allow the church to reopen if it agrees that a mosque can be built on church grounds.
Ahmadis
The government’s 2008 Joint Ministerial Decree bans Ahmadis from spreading their faith—a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Additionally, the MUI issued a fatwa (religious edict) declaring the Ahmadiyya faith to be deviant and heretical. Since then, some religious leaders and entire provinces, through the force of law, have expanded upon MUI’s fatwa by restricting Ahmadis even further, banning all Ahmadi activities. As a result, authorities have closed approximately 100 Ahmadi mosques and failed to properly investigate the destruction of several others. Ahmadis living throughout the country have reported difficulties obtaining ID cards or marriage licenses. Also, more than 100 Ahmadis remain internally displaced in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, after sectarian violence forced their eviction more than 10 years ago. The year 2016

marked five years since a violent mob attacked several Ahmadis in Cikeusik, Banten Province, killing three men and wounding several others. An Indonesian court convicted 12 men in the attacks but issued lenient sentences, the longest of which was only five and a half months; none of the men were charged with murder.
In February 2016, police and military forces evicted women and children of the Ahmadiyya faith from Sungailiat District in Bangka Regency. Acting on some Sunni Muslim residents’ objections to the Ahmadiyya faith, local officials tried to force the Ahmadis to leave their faith and “return to Islam” or face expulsion. The eviction occurred after local residents harassed and threatened the Ahmadis.
In February 2016, police and military forces evicted women and children
of the Ahmadiyya faith from Sungailiat District in Bangka Regency.
In May 2016, unknown vandals attacked and destroyed the Ahmadi Al Kautsar Mosque in Central Java. The mosque reportedly had previously obtained the proper permits under the 2006 Joint Regulation on Houses of Worship. In July 2016, officials closed another Ahmadi house of worship, the Al-Furqan Mosque in West Java. Throughout 2016, Ahmadis in South Jakarta were forced to pray outside the An Nur Mosque after the local government sealed the building in July 2015. In February 2017, authorities closed the Al-Hidayah Mosque in Depok, West Java, and posted notice that all Ahmadi activities were “illegal” after the FPI and other hardliners threatened both the mosque and Ahmadis.
Shi’a Muslims Some Shi’a Muslims practice Sunni Islam in public to avoid being discriminated against or singled out as different. Although hardliners and others have persecuted Shi’a Muslims for years, there is mounting suspicion about the correlation between the growing influence of Saudi Arabia in Indonesia (for more information, see the Background section) and rising anti-Shi’a sentiment.

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ANNUAL REPORT 2017 www.USCIRF.gov | Media@USCIRF.gov | @USCIRF

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 29 of 105

TIER 2 INDONESIA

Baha’is

Many upset by the speech viewed a video recording

Indonesia’s Baha’i community still experiences government discrimination. In 2016, members of the Baha’i faith continued to report frustration at not being able to obtain state recognition of civil marriages.

online that had edited Ahok’s remarks to suggest he insulted the Qur’an and Islam rather than his political opponents. At the end of the reporting period, Ahok’s trial was ongoing, and he advanced to the second-round election in his bid to remain Jakarta’s governor.

Gafatar

There is strong evidence to suggest the attacks on

During 2016, the government continued its attack on

Ahok are politically motivated. Muslim hardliners who

banned faith sect Fajar Nusantara Movement, also

believe it is not appropriate for a Christian to lead a

known as Gafatar, and some former members of the

Muslim city protested his ascension to the governorship

group reported various forms of discrimination. In Jan- after his predecessor, Jokowi, was elected president

uary 2016, the government forcibly evicted thousands

in 2014. Some oppose Ahok because he is Chinese,

of individuals from their

harkening back to the

homes in East and West

widespread discrimi-

Kalimantan provinces,

Muslim hardliners who believe it

nation ethnic Chinese

allowed mobs to set

is not appropriate for a Christian to

experienced under the

fire to the individuals’

lead a Muslim city protested [Ahok’s]

dictatorial rule of former

homes, and temporarily

ascension to the governorship. . . .

President Suharto. Also,

sent many followers to

one of Ahok’s first-round

“reeducation” centers.

election opponents, Agus

The Indonesian govern-

Harimurti Yudhoyono, is

ment disbanded the group in 2015 after declaring that

the son of former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,

its practices deviated from Islam. In February 2016, the who openly supported the MUI and its fatwas, as well as

MUI issued a fatwa pronouncing the group to be hereti- hardline groups like FPI.

cal. In March 2016, the government issued a joint decree

During the high-profile investigation and trial,

to prevent Gafatar members from conducting activities many officials—including President Jokowi, members

and spreading their beliefs. Then, in May 2016 the gov-

of the military, political party leaders, and representa-

ernment arrested three Gafatar founders and charged

tives from the two largest Muslim organizations, NU

them with blasphemy and treason. In March 2017, after and Muhammadiyah—spoke publicly about Indonesia’s

the reporting period, the three men were cleared of

tradition of pluralism and urged calm. Ahok’s critics and

treason but found guilty of blasphemy: Mahful Muis

supporters held several protests and rallies, drawing

Tumanurung and Ahmad Musadeq received five-year

crowds of tens of thousands in largely peaceful demon-

prison sentences, and Andi Cahya received three years. strations. However, a November 2016 protest turned

violent, leaving one man dead and approximately 100

Blasphemy

people wounded.

In addition to the trials against Gafatar members mentioned above, blasphemy charges were brought against Ahok for allegedly insulting Islam and the Qur’an. The case originated in a September 2016 speech in which Ahok encouraged voters not to be dissuaded from voting for him in the February 2017 gubernatorial election because the Qur’an tells Muslims not to align with Christians or Jews. Ahok, who is a Christian of Chinese descent, later apologized for his remarks. Muslim hardliners, such as the MUI and FPI, called on authorities to arrest or imprison Ahok, or even sentence him to death.

Another blasphemy case developed late in the reporting period after police announced they would investigate FPI leader Rizieq Shihab for alleged blasphemy. Shihab had a prominent role organizing the protests against Ahok. In January 2017, police formally named Shihab a suspect for 2014 comments in which he allegedly insulted the state ideology, known as Pancasila, as well as Sukarno, one of the country’s founding fathers. Police were reportedly investigating Shihab for other possibly blasphemous comments, including allegedly insulting Christianity.

U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ANNUAL REPORT 2017 www.USCIRF.gov | Media@USCIRF.gov | @USCIRF

TIER 2 INDONESIA

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 30 of 105
U.S. POLICY
The United States and Indonesia have strong bilateral relations that extend to other areas of shared regional and global concern. The two countries cooperate on a number of sectors, including education; maritime issues; trade and investment; energy, climate, and the environment; science and technology; and regional security.
In August 2016, the two countries launched the Indonesia-U.S. Council on Religion and Pluralism, a venture endorsed by President Jokowi and then President Barack Obama in October 2015 when the countries elevated their relationship from a Comprehensive Partnership to a Strategic Partnership. The independent, binational, nongovernmental body identified three priorities at its initial meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: (1) “increase religious understanding, mutual respect, and collaboration;” (2) “identify and foster positive civic and religious education models that promote analytical thinking and respect;” and (3) “empower civil society to deter violent extremism.” The council’s final report from the August launch outlined several activities for the 2017 calendar year, including proposed plans to collaborate with Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious Affairs.
During the reporting period, the United States addressed growing concerns of radicalism among Indonesia’s homegrown terrorists by designating several Indonesian individuals and groups as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” (SDGTs). On March 22, 2016, the State Department designated a man named Santoso—also known as Abu Wardah and described as Indonesia’s most wanted terrorist—as an SDGT. Before Indonesian security forces killed him in July 2016, Santoso led the Mujahidin Indonesia Timur (an entity on the SDGT list) and, according to the State Department’s announcement, “pledged his allegiance to ISIL/Daesh.” On January 10, 2017, the State Department designated the group Jammaah Anshorut Daulah (JAD), believed to be ISIS-affiliated, as an SDGT. Authorities believe JAD members were responsible for the January 2016 attack in Jakarta, in which eight people were killed.
In October 2016, then Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom David Saperstein traveled to Indonesia, visiting Jakarta, Banda Aceh, Bali, and Surabaya.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM | ANNUAL REPORT 2017 www.USCIRF.gov | Media@USCIRF.gov | @USCIRF

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 31 of 105
EXHIBIT F

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 1 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 32 of 105

NUMBERS, FACTS AND TRENDS SHAPING YOUR WORLD

x

Take part in our user survey! Please tell us

about your experience using our site.

ABOUT FOLLOW DONATE

MENU

Religion & Public Life

RESEARCH AREAS

Search

APRIL 11, 2017
Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend
Government harassment and use of force against religious groups surge as record number of refugees enter Europe
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downwardtrend/pf-04-11-2017_-restrictions-00-06/) Government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion increased in 2015 for the first time in three years, according to Pew Research Center’s latest annual study on global restrictions on religion.
The share of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions – i.e., laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices – ticked up from 24% in 2014 to 25% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage of countries with high or very high levels of social hostilities – i.e., acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society – increased in 2015, from 23% to 27%. Both of these increases follow two years of declines in the percentage of countries with high levels of restrictions on religion by these measures.
When looking at overall levels of restrictions in 2015 – whether resulting from government policies and actions or from hostile acts by private individuals, organizations or social groups – the new study finds that 40% of countries had high or very high levels of restrictions, up from 34% in 2014.
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downwardtrend/pf-04-11-2017_-restrictions-00-05/) In addition to a rise in the percentage of countries with high or very high levels of government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion, religious restrictions also rose in 2015 by other measures. For example, more countries saw their scores on the Government Restrictions Index (based on 20 indicators of government restrictions on religion) increase rather than decrease (see Chapter 1 (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/rise-in-countries-with-very-high-governmentrestrictions-on-religion-in-2015) ). And the global median score on the Social Hostilities Index, based on 13 measures of social hostilities involving religion, ticked up in 2015 (see Chapter 3 (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/government-restrictions-rise-in-nearly-all-regions-in-2015) ).

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 2 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 33 of 105
The global rise in social hostilities reflected a number of factors, including increases in mob violence related to religion, individuals being assaulted or displaced due to their faith, and incidents where violence was used to enforce religious norms. In Europe, for instance, there were 17 countries where incidents of religionrelated mob violence were reported in 2015, up from nine the previous year. And sub-Saharan Africa saw a spread in violence used to enforce religious norms, such as the targeting of people with albinism for rituals by witch doctors. This type of hostility was reported in 25 countries in sub-Saharan Africa in 2015, up from nine countries in 2014. (For more on rising religious restrictions in sub-Saharan Africa, see sidebar in Chapter 3 (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/governmentrestrictions-rise-in-nearly-all-regions-in2015#sidebar) .)
The increase in government restrictions was linked to a surge in government harassment and use of force against religious groups, two of the specific indicators used to measure government restrictions on religion in the analysis.1 Four of the five geographic regions analyzed in this report – the Middle East and North Africa, Asia and the Pacific, sub-Saharan Africa and Europe – saw increases in these two areas.
Of the 198 countries in the study, 105 (53%) experienced widespread government harassment of religious groups, up from 85 (43%) in 2014 and 96 (48%) in 2013. Limited harassment – cases that were isolated or affected a small number of groups – also rose, taking place in 52 countries (26%) in 2015 (up from 44, or 22% of countries, in 2014).
Government use of force against religious groups increased as well, with 23 countries (12%) experiencing more than 200 cases of government force in 2015, up from 21 (11%) in 2014. There was an even bigger increase in the number of countries with at least one, but no more than 200 incidents of government use of force against religious groups: 83 nations (42%) fell into this category in 2015, an increase from 60 countries (30%) in 2014.
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 3 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 34 of 105
Government harassment and use of force rising in Europe, along with social hostilities against Muslims
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religionrise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downward-trend/pf-04-112017_-restrictions-00-04/) While the Middle East-North Africa region continued to have the largest proportion of governments that engaged in harassment and use of force against religious groups (95%), Europe had the largest increase in these measures in 2015. More than half of the 45 countries in the region (53%) experienced an increase in government harassment or use of force from 2014 to 2015. Twenty-seven European countries (60%) saw widespread government harassment or intimidation of religious groups in 2015, up from 17 countries in 2014. And the governments of 24 countries in Europe (53%) used some type of force against religious groups, an increase from 15 (33%) in 2014.
Two countries in Europe, France and Russia, each had more than 200 cases of government force against religious groups – mostly cases of individuals being punished for violating the ban on face coverings in public spaces and government buildings in France, and groups being prosecuted in Russia for publicly exercising their religion.2 France and Russia also were the only two European countries with more than 200 cases of government force against religious groups in 2014, but there was a significant rise in 2015 in the number of countries in Europe where lower numbers of incidents – between one and nine – occurred (eight in 2014 vs. 17 in 2015).
Some incidents of government harassment measured by this study – which are not always physical, but may include derogatory statements by public officials or discrimination against certain religious groups – were related to Europe’s incoming refugee population. In 2015, 1.3 million migrants applied for asylum in Europe (http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/number-of-refugees-to-europe-surges-to-record-1-3-million-in2015/) , nearly doubling the previous annual high of about 700,000 in 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. More than half (54%) came from three Muslim-majority countries – Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
One such example involved Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, who complained about the religious makeup of refugees coming into the country. In September 2015, he wrote in a German newspaper, “Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims.” He later told journalists, “I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country,” and in another interview said “the Islamic religion and culture do not blend with Christian religion and culture; it is a different way of life.”3
Similarly, neighboring Slovakia rejected European Union mandatory refugee quotas, but said it would accept 200 Christian refugees from Syria. In August 2015, the Ministry of Interior explained the decision, saying Christian refugees would be better able to assimilate into Slovakian society than Muslim refugees
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 4 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 35 of 105
given the lack of officially recognized mosques in the country. Earlier in the year, the leader of the Slovak National Party, Andrej Danko, had proposed a new law that would make it impossible to build Islamic religious buildings in the country.4
In addition to harassment by government officials, many European governments employed force against religious groups. For example, in February of 2015, German police raided the mosque of the Islamic Cultural Center in Bremen; the police said they suspected that the mosque supported Salafist groups and that a person associated with the mosque was distributing automatic weapons for a terror attack. Police broke down the front door of the mosque, handcuffed worshippers and forced some to lie on the floor for hours. No weapons were found in the mosque. In July, a Bremen regional court ruled that the search was unlawful.5
These incidents took place in a climate influenced by threats and attacks from religiously inspired terrorist groups. France experienced several religion-related terror attacks in 2015, including the Jan. 7 shooting at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the Nov. 13 attacks claimed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) at the Bataclan concert hall and various other locations throughout Paris.6 In the days following the Paris attacks, Germany cancelled an international soccer match because of security threats, and Belgian authorities arrested 16 people suspected of planning similar acts.7
Altogether, European law enforcement officials reported record numbers of terrorist attacks either carried out or prevented by authorities in 2015, although not all of these events were directly related to religion.8
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downwardtrend/pf-04-11-2017_-restrictions-00-03/) Attacks that were influenced by religion, such as those in Paris, are counted in the study as social hostilities involving religion – i.e., hostile actions motivated by religion and carried out by individuals or social groups, separate from government actions. In Europe, hostilities toward Muslims in particular increased considerably. In 2015, 32 countries in Europe (71%) experienced social hostilities toward Muslims, up from 26 countries (58%) in 2014. By comparison, social hostilities toward
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 5 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 36 of 105
Christians spread from 17 (38%) countries in 2014 to 21 (47%) in 2015. Hostilities against Jews in Europe remained common and increased slightly, from 32 (71%) countries in 2014 to 33 (73%) countries in 2015. Many of the incidents targeting these religious groups occurred in the form of mob violence.
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downwardtrend/pf-04-11-2017_-restrictions-00-02/) In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan concert hall shootings, some Muslims in France faced violent attacks by social groups or individuals. For example, two Muslim places of worship in the cities of Le Mans and Narbonne were attacked by grenades and gunshots the day after the Charlie Hebdo shooting. France’s Interior Ministry reported that anti-Muslim incidents more than tripled in 2015, including cases of hate speech, vandalism and violence against individuals.9
Vandals in Spain also targeted mosques after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January of 2015.10 Perpetrators drew swastikas and threats on Spanish mosques and Islamic centers on four separate occasions that month. In Slovakia, far-right political groups organized protests against the “Islamization of Europe and Slovakia,” drawing an estimated 3,000-5,000 people in Bratislava in June. The protest was called “STOP to the Islamization of Europe! Together against the Brussels dictate, for a Europe for Europeans.” Groups held two more protests in September and October along a similar theme.11
About this report
This is the eighth in a series of reports by Pew Research Center analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. The studies are part of the PewTempleton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. The project is jointly funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation.
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 6 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 37 of 105
To measure global restrictions on religion in 2015 – the most recent year for which data are available – the study ranks 198 countries and territories by their levels of government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion. The new study is based on the same 10-point indexes used in the previous studies.
◾ The Government Restrictions Index measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices. The GRI is comprised of 20 measures of restrictions, including efforts by government to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversion, limit preaching or give preferential treatment to one or more religious groups.
◾ The Social Hostilities Index measures acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society. This includes religion-related armed conflict or terrorism, mob or sectarian violence, harassment over attire for religious reasons or other religion-related intimidation or abuse. The SHI includes 13 measures of social hostilities.
To track these indicators of government restrictions and social hostilities, researchers combed through more than a dozen publicly available, widely cited sources of information, including the U.S. State Department’s annual reports on international religious freedom and annual reports from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as well as reports from a variety of European and U.N. bodies and several independent, nongovernmental organizations. (See Methodology (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/methodology-13) for more details on sources used in the study.)
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015-reversing-downwardtrend/pf-04-11-2017_-restrictions-00-01/) The new study also examines religious restrictions by region. The sharpest increase in median Government Restrictions Index score in 2015 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, rising to 2.2 from 1.5 in 2014 (see sidebar in Chapter 3 (http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/governmentrestrictions-rise-in-nearly-all-regions-in-2015#sidebar) for more information on changes in sub-Saharan Africa).12 But when looking at long-term trends, it is clear that a few other regions, including the AsiaPacific region and Europe, have seen greater increases in median levels of government restrictions on
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 7 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 38 of 105
religion since 2007. Indeed, the Middle EastNorth Africa region has seen the largest increase in government restrictions since 2007 and continued to have the highest level of these restrictions in 2015, with the region’s median score increasing to 5.9 from 5.4 in 2014.
(http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/globalrestrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-2015reversing-downward-trend/pf-04-112017_-restrictions-00-00/) Europe was one of the two regions where social hostilities toward religion rose in 2015, but sub-Saharan Africa experienced the largest increase in its median score during the year. The Middle East-North Africa region continued to have the highest levels of hostilities, despite a decline in 2015.
Combining government restrictions and social hostilities, four-in-ten of the countries included in the study are in the most restrictive categories (high or very high). But some of these countries are among the world’s most populous (such as Indonesia and Pakistan). As a result, 79% of the world’s population lived in countries with high or very high levels of restrictions and/or hostilities in 2015 (up from 74% in 2014). It is important to note, however, that these restrictions and hostilities do not necessarily affect the religious groups and citizens of these countries equally, as certain groups or individuals may be targeted more frequently by these policies and actions than others.
Among the world’s 25 most populous countries, Russia, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Nigeria had the highest overall levels of government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion. Egypt had the highest levels of government restrictions in 2015, while Nigeria had the highest levels of social hostilities.
Muslims and Christians – who together make up more than half of the global population (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/) – continued to be harassed in the highest number of countries. The study also finds that the number of countries where Jews were harassed fell slightly in 2015, after years of steady increases.
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 8 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 39 of 105
1. For the purposes of this study, government harassment includes a government offense against a religious group or person due to their religious identity, including physical coercion or being singled out with the intent of making life or religious practice more difficult. Policies that specifically have an adverse effect on particular religious groups, or negative public comments or characterizations about religious groups by the government or government officials, also constitute harassment. Harassment is categorized as “limited” or “widespread” depending on the number of groups affected, the frequency of the harassment, the potential for the harassment to spread to multiple regions, or whether the harassment indicates a possible campaign against a certain religion or practice. For example, a country in which more than three religious groups were harassed, or where the harassment occurred in more than one region, would be classified as having widespread harassment of religious groups. A country in which one group was harassed, or where the harassment occurred in an isolated region, would be classified as having limited harassment of religious groups. Government use of force against religious groups can include government actions or policies that result in damage to personal or religious property, arrest and detentions, displacement, assault, or death. Cases are aggregated into five categories, ranging from at least one but fewer than 10 cases to over 10,000 cases in a year. This measure does not include government use of force against those explicitly intending malicious harm. For more details on how the analysis in this report is conducted, see Methodology. ↩
2. U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “France.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. Also see the European Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance. June 30, 2016. “Annual Report on the State of Freedom of Religion or Belief in the World.” ↩
3. Mackey, Robert. Sept. 3, 2015. “Hungarian Leader Rebuked for Saying Muslim Migrants Must Be Blocked ‘to Keep Europe Christian.’” The New York Times. Also see U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “Hungary.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. ↩
4. U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “Slovak Republic.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. ↩
5. U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “Germany.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. ↩
6. Bilefsky, Dan, and Maïa de la Baume. Jan. 7, 2015. “Terrorists Strike Charlie Hebdo Newspaper in Paris, Leaving 12 Dead.” The New York Times. Also see Rubin, Alissa J. Nov. 12, 2016. “Paris: One Year On.” The New York Times. ↩
7. Eddy, Melissa. Nov. 17, 2015. “Soccer Match in Germany Is Canceled Over Security Concerns.” The New York Times. Also see Higgins, Andrew, and Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura. Nov. 22, 2015. “16 Arrests in Belgium Terrorism Raids.” The New York Times. ↩
8. July 20, 2016. “Record number of EU terror attacks recorded in 2015.” BBC News. ↩
9. U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “France.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. ↩
10. U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “Spain.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. ↩
11. U.S. Department of State. Aug. 10, 2016. “Slovak Republic.” International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. ↩
12. As a result of an audit of country constitutions, sub-Saharan Africa’s median score in 2014 was amended to 1.5. See Methodology for details. ↩
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend | Pe... Page 9 of 9 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 40 of 105
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-rise-modestly-in-201... 9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 41 of 105
EXHIBIT G

Islamist Intolerance Poses Growing Threat to Indonesia | Time.com

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 42 of 105

The Islamic Defenders Front holds a rally to support the closure of Southeast Asia's largest red-light area, Dolly, in the Indonesian city of Surabaya on June 18, 2014 Anadolu Agency—Getty Images
INDONESIA
Islamist Intolerance Poses a Growing Threat to Indonesia's Minorities
Jonathan Emont / Yogyakarta Apr 20, 2016
Late in the evening on April 2, a group of around 15 men from the Islamic Jihad Front, a local hard-line group, stormed into Lady Fast, a music event focused on female empowerment in the city of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The hard-liners called the women “communists” and “trash,” and demanded that the show be immediately shut down. A.Y., one of the event’s organizers who asked to be only identified by her initials, says in an e-mail to TIME that when she tried to reason with the hard-liners, who were busy tearing down posters from the walls, one said to her, “Do you want
http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslim-islamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-... 9/25/2017

Islamist Intolerance Poses Growing Threat to Indonesia | Time.com

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 43 of 105

an argument or a debate? What do you want? You’re a woman, easy enough to punch you!”
The police had already arrived by then, shooting into the air to establish their presence. They did not arrest any of the hard-liners but instead they detained four Lady Fast organizers and participants, questioning them about the nature of their event and about a book on LGBT rights the police discovered at the venue. A.Y. grew frustrated. “It shouldn’t have been me that was brought to the police station, but the man who almost punched me,” she says. She told the police that the book on LGBT rights had been at the venue before Lady Fast began; she was released with no charges a few hours later.
Yogyakarta is vaunted as Indonesia’s bohemian university town, where students from all over a huge and diverse nation gather to study. It is a place of the arts, especially of Javanese culture, and has become a centerpiece of the national government’s new campaign to promote tourism.
But recently, it has also become a centerpiece of a hard-line Islamist campaign to subdue Indonesia’s minority groups — a category that includes Christians, minority Muslim sects, progressive student groups, and the LGBT community. According to the Wahid Institute and the Legal Aid Institute, two organizations that monitor rights abuses in Indonesia, over the past two years more abuses of minority rights have been recorded in Yogyakarta than any region other than deeply conservative West Java province. Examples of recent abuses in Yogyakarta include the burning of a Baptist church, an assault on Afghan Shi‘ite Muslim refugees, the refusal by local government leaders to allow ethnic Dayak students from rural Borneo to hold a traditional ceremony, and the forcible suspension of Pondok Pesantren al-Fatah, which had been the world’s only transgender Islamic boarding school.

http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslim-islamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-... 9/25/2017

Islamist Intolerance Poses Growing Threat to Indonesia | Time.com

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 44 of 105

“This is quite a significant development in Yogyakarta, actually, in terms of growing intolerance,” says M. Najib Azka, a professor of sociology at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, the nation’s oldest university, who blamed the city’s government and police force for its refusal to confront hard-line groups.
Municipal authorities have long promoted the city with the slogan “City of Tolerance,” which features on several murals around Yogyakarta. After the attack on Lady Fast, a newly formed progressive group, Solidarity for a Peaceful Yogyakarta, painted a big question mark on each of the murals.
The same question mark could be said to hang over the rest of Indonesia. In 2014, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, a committed pluralist, won the presidency over Prabowo Subianto, a former special-forces officer who had the backing of Indonesia’s conservative and hardline Muslim organizations. Jokowi’s victory, and his urging of the police to take action against hard-line groups encouraged progressive hopes that Indonesia finally had a President determined to rein in the ultra-conservatives.
Instead, incidents of intolerance have spiked during Jokowi’s presidency, with the President appearing to focus his attention on reviving Indonesia’s economy in his first 18 months in office. The Setara Institute, an organization that tracks religious violence in Indonesia, recorded 236 cases of religious violence in Indonesia in 2015, the first full year of Jokowi’s presidency, compared with 177 in 2014. Bonar Tigor Naipospos, the institute’s executive director, says, “[Jokowi] thinks improving the economy can solve all problems. He doesn’t have a sufficient understanding of human rights and how to protect minority groups. There are too many cases where the police are simply silent.”
http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslim-islamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-... 9/25/2017

Islamist Intolerance Poses Growing Threat to Indonesia | Time.com

Page 4 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 45 of 105

The President’s Office declined to comment for this article. Boy Rafli Amar, chief spokesperson for the National Police, responds to TIME's questions about the police's apparent tolerance of hard-line groups via a WhatsApp message. “Intolerant groups that take violent action must be met with a strong response in accordance with the law,” he writes. “We are already undertaking this effort.”
Participants of Lady Fast remain skeptical. “When hard-line groups repressed and intimidated us, why was it the event organizers, as well as participants, who were detained? Why didn’t the police tell the hard-line group to get lost?” asks Pamillia, who participated in the event.
That remains a giant question mark.

http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslim-islamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-... 9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 46 of 105
EXHIBIT H

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling | Foreign Policy

Page 1 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 47 of 105

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling
Liberal Muslims are fretting as fundamentalists seize the popular moment.
BY KRITHIKA VARAGUR FEBRUARY 14, 2017
JAKARTA, Indonesia — In the struggle against Islamic extremism, few groups have been fighting for longer than Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the Sunni organization that has become the global face of Indonesia’s pluralistic Islam. Founded in 1926 to prevent Saudi Arabia’s bitterly intolerant Wahhabism from taking root in Indonesia, it’s a cultural touchstone for Indonesians proud of their heritage of religious tolerance — and a symbol of moderate Islam worldwide.
But NU’s work seems to be collapsing at home. The national conversation of the last five months has been monopolized by a far-right Islamist group called the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). FPI has around 200,000 members; NU — somewhat dubiously — claims 50 million worldwide. But it’s the extremists who are setting the pace in Indonesia and threatening to transform NU in the process.
Trending Articles
Meet the Lesbian Goldman Sachs Economist Who Just Led…
How Alice Weidel manages to be a globalist and nativist at the same time.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling | Foreign Policy

Page 2 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 48 of 105

Powered By
FPI has organized huge, racially charged rallies in Jakarta to protest the city’s Chinese Christian governor, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, whom it accused of blasphemy for quoting a Quran verse about electing non-Muslim leaders. NU discouraged, but didn’t prohibit, its members from attending them. Some NU members, wearing the group’s scarves and holding its flags, even attended FPI’s rallies. FPI’s hyperbolic allegation went all the way to court, where the governor is now sitting trial as he runs for re-election. In charging Ahok, the police sided with FPI rather than NU, which publicly disputed the blasphemy charge. It was a stunning accomplishment for a fringe group — and one that has left the Indonesian center shaken and frightened.
NU is reliably quick to defuse anxiety about radicalism with the refrain that the “real” Islam is tolerant, peaceful, and inhospitable to jihad — especially in Indonesia. And it’s true that Indonesia has remarkably few terrorists given its population size. NU also has a prominent global profile due to its fondness for interfaith conferences, summits for Muslim leaders, and ambitious campaigns against extremism.
But there is a growing chasm between Indonesia’s national refrain about its tolerant, pluralistic tradition and the conservative populism that has breached public life. People on both sides are now waiting to see if the governor’s trial will help revive Indonesia’s moderate Muslim establishment or mark the beginning of its end.
“The Ahok affair has been a huge wake-up call,” said Alissa Wahid, a social activist, NU official, and daughter of late Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid. “We have been suffering for 10 years, letting hard-liners take center stage on social issues and even commit violence,” she said. “The challenges for NU going forward are not small.”
NU was a political party until 1984 but now concentrates on social welfare and religious education, often in tandem with other faith groups, encapsulating Indonesia’s syncretic mix of animistic, Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist traditions alongside Islam. The archetypal NU public figure was Abdurrahman Wahid, who was chairman of the group for 15 years before he was elected president in 1999. Yet under Wahid, far more strident groups started to elbow NU offstage.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling | Foreign Policy

Page 3 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 49 of 105

“The prominence of liberal Muslim intellectuals like Wahid made moderate Islam seem like a stable and dominant ideology,” said Luthfi Assyaukanie, a researcher and co-founder of the Liberal Islam Network. “But before 1998, when [the dictator] Suharto fell, the media was tightly controlled and privileged the discourse of liberal, tolerant groups like NU.”
In retrospect, Assyaukanie said, the center could not hold. Suharto’s authoritarianism prioritized religious tolerance — for the sake of stability, if nothing else. But when the democratic floodgates opened in 1998, conservatives could finally organize and evangelize. FPI was founded in late 1998, the sharia-promoting hard-line Indonesian Mujahideen Council in 2000, and the reactionary Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in 2002.
“I don’t think NU adapted fast enough to the new media environment,” said Savic Ali, a young NU member who runs its website and Nutizen, a new streaming video platform. “The people who really took advantage of it were the hard right — conservative voices like that of [the celebrity TV preacher] Abdullah Gymnastiar who amass huge followings on TV and social media.” Ali is spearheading an effort to raise the digital profile of NU preachers but admits they’re playing catch-up.
Indonesian Muslims, including NU’s member base, are becoming more intensely and visibly conservative. A recent survey found that four in five public school religion teachers support imposing sharia, or Islamic law. And “more women wear hijab, more families go to Mecca, more people pray in public spaces after 1998,” Assyaukanie said.
The conservative elements within NU itself make it difficult to robustly counter these trends. Many NU ulema (religious scholars) have always been conservative, said political scientist William Liddle, at Ohio State University. “During and since President Wahid, the impression that moderates dominate NU has never been accurate.”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling | Foreign Policy

Page 4 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 50 of 105

Alissa Wahid said growing conservatism within NU has been accompanied by intolerance. “In the last 15 years, NU members have become not just conservative in ritual but also rude, enforcing a ‘majoritarian perspective’ that dismisses all other kinds of Islam, leave alone other religions,” she said. The decentralized nature of NU is another roadblock to reform: It has always been a loose alliance of religious leaders and lay members, so there is, Wahid said, a “constant discussion” within NU leadership about how, if at all, to enforce NU directives.
Beyond these internal issues, Saudi Arabia has also invested billions of dollars since 1980 to spread puritanical Salafi Islam in Indonesia. Despite its explicitly anti-Wahhabi origins, NU has largely neglected to address the effects of this program, Assyaunakie said. “Plus, Salafi ideas are entering the organization itself, which has become steadily more conservative since the day Wahid left.”
“NU is not a good soldier for this battle vis-à-vis Salafism,” said Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, the other co-founder of the Liberal Islam Network. “It still has conservative instincts. Many members share, for instance, the fundamentalist viewpoint that Shiites and Ahmadiyya are not real Muslims; the only difference is that they don’t condone violence.”
And NU’s own efforts in the international battle against extremism may also be hampering it at home. NU’s biggest overture against Salafi encroachment was its annual congress in 2015, in which, as Margaret Scott wrote, NU leaders affirmed that “Indonesian Islam is nationalist, pluralist, moderate, and democratic … as a way to fight Salafis and Saudi influence.” The congress is part of a packed calendar of outward-facing NU meetings and conferences, which, according to French political scientist Delphine Alles, springs from NU’s unofficial role as an international ambassador for Indonesia’s moderate image.
Alles recounts how Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has promoted staging “international forums of inter-religious dialogue, a popular theme since the middle of the 2000s.” Indonesia’s director for information and public diplomacy has been “financially and logistically supporting” NU’s International Conference of Islamic Scholars since 2006. But it is a “notorious fact,” writes Alles, that “the declarations of intentions that these forums pronounce often leave their observers with a sense of frustration” because they fail to address any real points of contention.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling | Foreign Policy

Page 5 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 51 of 105

Observers argue that the bandwidth NU devotes to targeting foreigners could be better used on promoting progressive values in terms of issues that affect its base directly. “The emphasis placed by NU elites on pluralism and tolerance has, at times, translated into support for socioeconomic policies, like forced evictions, that have had devastating impacts on the poor,” said Ian Wilson, a researcher at Murdoch University in Australia. “This seeming disjuncture between progressive social values and acquiescence to economic policies hostile to the poor may have provided openings for neoconservatives and hard-liners to capture resentment.”
In this vacuum, FPI has become an invaluable resource to embattled Jakarta slums that are targeted by Ahok’s eviction program. In April 2016, for instance, when the government threatened to evict about 1,000 residents of the Luar Batang neighborhood, FPI set up a lean charity operation that provided food, clothing, and volunteers to the poor community.
Despite these hiccups, liberal Islam remains the rule, not the exception, among Indonesia’s political parties. The catch is that politicians tend to manifest this obliquely, Assyaukanie said.
“Secular parties don’t talk about Islam in straightforward terms; they couch it in issues like ‘religious tolerance’ and ‘increasing women’s rights,’” he said. “It could help if they talked about Islam more forwardly.” Their failure to do so, he added, creates a vacuum for right-wing Islamist parties like PKS to set the agenda for political Islam in the country.
Still, Liddle thinks liberal political Islam fares far better in Indonesia than in other Muslim countries. “[Rightwing parties like] PKS, though close to being sharia parties, are small and tarnished. Compare that with most of the Arab Middle East, like Egypt, where an Islamist party, the Muslim Brotherhood, … got 40 percent of the parliamentary vote and elected a president,” he said.
Indonesia is not alone in its ideological tumult. Malaysia, a nearby moderate Muslim country, has been edging toward Islamic law in recent years. The formally secular nation of Bangladesh is seeing many of the same cultural shifts — more women wearing hijabs, higher madrasa attendance — as Indonesia has and with apparent government support. None of the progressive parties of the Arab Spring are thriving six years later, save for Tunisia’s Ennahdha Movement.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Moderate Islam is Slowly Crumbling | Foreign Policy

Page 6 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 52 of 105

But, according to Rice University political scientist A. Kadir Yildirim, Indonesia has an “important advantage” within the Muslim world because, “compared to most Arab countries, Indonesia has an established and vibrant electoral democracy, which provides an opportunity for many important discussions regarding modernization, religion-state, and democratization to take place in public view.”
The obvious comparison to Indonesia’s experiment in Muslim democracy is Turkey, which has been similarly blindsided by its population’s growing conservatism. Turkey, too, had a generation of Westernized liberalism under a strongman leader — Ataturk there, Suharto in Indonesia. But their ideological legacy was revealed to be less stable when democratic floodgates opened. In the wake of furious culture wars between “Black” (traditional) and “White” (urban progressive) Turks, its citizens have voted the conservative strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan into the offices of prime minister and then president for more than 13 years. Indonesia’s next presidential election, in 2019, could be a weather vane for the country’s future course following its currently moderate, globally minded president, Joko Widodo.
Maybe it’s hard for moderate Muslims to create viable political platforms because moderation, as a concept, is just difficult. It is a ceaseless balancing act, especially when simplistic right-wing parties like FPI constantly extend the range of acceptable discourse.
For Indonesian moderates, the collapse of the center elsewhere — like in the United States — is a chilling warning. “The essential problem of blasphemy with Ahok’s case is not for us to decide, but it highlights how fear and hatred of the ‘other’ have been politically exploited,” Wahid said. If the Ahok case hadn’t happened, she added, something else would have shaken the liberal establishment out of complacency.
“The protests were fine, they were manageable, and dealing with them is preferable to something like the shocking American election.” She sighed. “Hopefully it won’t come to that here.”
Credit: ADEK BERRY/ Staff

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 53 of 105
EXHIBIT I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 54 of 105
Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report
Universal Periodic Review: 3rd Cycle, 27th Session
INDONESIA
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Indonesia is not a State party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refuge es or its 1967 Protocol (hereinafter jointly referred to as the 1951 Convention), nor has it signed the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Person (the 1954 Convention) or the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (the 1961 Convention).
Refugees and asylum-seekers:
As of July 2016, Indonesia hosts 13,474 refugees and asylum-seekers from 48 different countries, of whom 3,548 are female and 9,926 are male.1 UNHCR conducts registration and refugee status determination (RSD) and seeks durable solutions for refugees on behalf of the Government. The absence of a comprehensive national legal framework for refugee protection limits refugees’ enjoyment of basic rights, such as freedom of movement (with more than 4,200 currently being arbitrarily detained), access to education and healthcare, and access to birth certificates as a measure to prevent statelessness. The Government has drafted a Presidential Regulation on the Handling of Foreign Refugees and Asylum-Seekers that would effectively end the detention of refugees and asylum-seekers, though this proposed law has remained pending enactment for several years.
Stateless persons:
As of July 2016, UNHCR had registered some 934 stateless Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, including those who had disembarked in Indonesia during the 2015 Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea Crisis.2 Currently, neither UNHCR nor the Government has reliable data on the number of statelessness persons in the country but there are indications that a potentially sizeable population exists. Identifying these persons is challenging partly because the different groups may be hidden among an estimated 24 million children whose births have not been registered.3
II. ACHIEVEMENTS AND POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Positive developments linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendations
1 UNHCR Indonesia, Monthly Statistical Report May2016. 2 UNHCR Indonesia, Internal Report. 3 Centre for Child Protection (PEKKA), Kajian Identitas Hukum: Jutaan Orang Hidup Tanpa Akta Kelahiran, (DFAT, PEKKA, and Puskapa UI, Jakarta: 2014), p.6.
1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 55 of 105
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 108.58: “Provide more resources for implementing the national policies and programmes in favour of social vulnerable groups like women, children, poor people, ethnic minorities and migrants (Viet Nam).”4
Despite Indonesia not being a State party to the 1951 Convention, UNHCR is provided unhindered access to register those who wish to seek asylum, issue formal documentation of their status, process their claims for refugee status, and refer their cases for durable solutions, including third-country resettlement. UNHCR appreciates the commitment of the Government of Indonesia to ensure rescue at sea, safe disembarkation, and access to territory and to asylum procedures, and commends the Government for taking the lead among countries in the region to protect the safety and rights of refugees and asylum-seekers. In particular, UNHCR applauds the Government’s decision to allow the disembarkation of some 1,000 Myanmar Rohingya refugees and 800 Bangladeshi migrants during the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea Crisis in May 2015, and to provide them with basic assistance, medical services, education, and shelter while durable solutions are being sought for them.
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 108.112: “Undertake measures to protect members of religious groups, including Ahmadis, Bahais, Christians and Shias from harassment and acts of violence. This should commence with holding senior law enforcement accountable for their duties that include training for law enforcement officials at the local level to ensure an effective and adequate response to these incidents. This would also include reviewing laws and regulations which discriminate, directly or indirectly against one’s religion or belief, including in particular the Blasphemy Act (Canada).”
UNHCR recognizes efforts taken by the Government of Indonesia to protect members of minority religious groups. In October 2015, in light of threats made against a group of unaccompanied refugee children residing in a shelter in Yogyakarta because of their practice of Shia religious traditions, the Government took immediate action to relocate the children to Semarang to ensure their safety. Additionally, in January 2016, following attacks against the Fajar Nusantara religious movement in West Kalimantan, the Government evacuated more than 1,000 victims and accommodated them in facilities managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs, where they received material support and psychosocial assistance until they could be returned to their home villages.
III. KEY PROTECTION ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Challenges linked to outstanding 2nd cycle UPR recommendations
Issue 1: Respect for minority rights and freedom of religion
Linked to 2nd cycle UPR recommendation no. 108.68: “Continue the efforts to fight against all forms of discrimination and to respect the rights of religious minorities (Argentina)” and no. 108.102: “Guarantee freedom of religion or belief and the full respect of the rights of persons belonging to minorities (France)”.
Most refugees and asylum-seekers in Indonesia belong to minority religions, particularly Shia Islam and Christianity, and discrimination against religious minorities impacts refugee
4 “Report of the Working Group on theUniversal Periodic Review of Indonesia” (5 July 2012), A / HRC/ 21/ 7, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/IDSession13.aspx.
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 56 of 105
protection. Under Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution “every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice,”5 and “the State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or beliefs.”6 However, in practice religious minorities continue to face discrimination within Indonesian society. Further to the abovementioned Sunni extremists’ threat against Shia unaccompanied refugee children in Yogyakarta, none of the perpetrators were prosecuted. Other examples of growing intolerance toward the Shia among refugee hosting communities are the public address by Syariah College Hidayyatullah in Balikpapan, a city hosting refugees and asylum-seekers, against Afghan Shia refugees as a threat to the country,7 and the issuance of a circular by the Mayor of Bogor, a city where thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers reside, banning any religious activities by Shia in the city.8 Furthermore, despite policies allowing refugees to be released from immigration detention facilities and placed in designated community accommodation, the expansion of this alternative to detention in order to meet the needs of the growing number of detained refugees is hampered by communities’ resistance to allow the establishment of additional facilities; the predominance of the Shia among the refugee population is cited as one of the main reasons for this resistance. UNHCR is concerned by the reluctance of authorities in localities where extremist groups are particularly active to support the rights of religious minorities.
UNHCR is also concerned with increasing intolerance toward other minority groups, particularly LGBTI individuals. While sexual activity between two consenting same-sex adults is not criminalized under the Criminal Code of Indonesia,9 such activity is criminalized under some local bylaws and ordinances.10 Discrimination against LGBTI individuals is also supported by such laws and policies as the 2008 Pornography Law, which defines anal sex, oral sex, lesbianism and homosexuality as “deviant sexual intercourse”,11 and a regulation enacted by the Ministry of Social Affairs in 2012 that categorizes transgender, gay and lesbian persons as “people with social welfare problems” that can be resolved through “rehabilitation”.12 Such policies have led to increasing discrimination, intolerance and assaults against LGBTI individuals, groups, and organizations that defend their rights. In particular, since January 2016 there has been a growing climate of intolerance after high-level public officials’ inflammatory statements13 and opposition to local LGBTI groups support programmes, which were deemed not to be in accordance with Indonesia's current culture and norms.14 UNHCR is concerned about the potential impact this could have on LGBTI refugees and asylum-seekers in the country.
Re comme ndations : UNHCR recommends that the Government of Indonesia:
5 The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 28E. 6 The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 29(2). 7 “Redaksi STISHID: Himbauan Anti-Shiah,”STIS Hidayyatullah, 8 December 2014. 8 “Ajaran Syiah, Menurut MUI, Tiidak Dilarang di Indonesia,” BBC Indonesia, 15 October 2015. 9 Ministry of Justice, DirectorateGeneral of Law and Legislation, Penal Codeof Indonesia, 1999. 10 In September 2014, for instance, Aceh Provincepassed thebylaw that criminalizes same-sexsexual act iv it y in the province and subjects those convicted to 100 lashes with a cane or 100 months of imprisonment (Government of Aceh, Qanun No.6 Year 2014 on Jinayat, Articles 63 and 64). UNHCR is aware t h at s imilar bylaws havebeen adopted in other provinces, including South Sumatera, South Kaliman t an, W est Jav a an d West Sumatera. 11 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 44 Year 2008 on Pornography. 12 Ministry of Social Affairs, Regulation No. 8 Year 2012 on Peoplewith Social Welfare Problems. 13 Amnesty International, Indonesia: Stop inflammatory and discriminatory st at ements t h at p ut t h e LGBTI community at risk, 18 March 2016, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/3648/2016/en/. 14 “Kalla Urged UNDP Not To Fund LGBT Groups,” Jakarta Post, 15 February 2016
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 57 of 105
a) Observe and enforce the 1945 Constitution, in order to prevent and eradicate intolerance and all forms of discrimination against minority groups and enact legislation that protects the civil liberties of all minority groups;
b) Prosecute those who publicly spread hate speech and sensitize government officials to refrain from inciting public hatred towards religious and other minority groups;
c) Promote initiatives aimed at raising the hosting communities’ awareness on the rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and unaccompanied and separated children belonging to religious minorities, and ensure that alternatives to detention are available in law and implemented in practice;15 and
d) Decriminalize same-sex relationships in bylaws and ordinances throughout the country and amend its 2008 Pornography Law with a view to declassifying same-sex consensual relations between adults as “deviant sexual intercourse”.
Additional Prote ction Challenges
Issue 2: Compliance with the principle of non-refoulement and access to fundamental rights
While Indonesia has generally respected the principle of non-refoulement, three incidents of asylum-seekers being returned to countries where they could face persecution have been reported since 2013; in three other incidents UNHCR was able to negotiate with the Government to prevent refoulement. Incidents of refoulement have hardly been seen since UNHCR established its presence in Indonesia in 1979, and UNHCR is concerned by these recent alarming episodes. Despite the right to seek asylum being guaranteed in Indonesia's 1945 Constitution16 and 1999 Human Rights Law,17 the 2011 Immigration Law does not include provisions relating to asylum and provides authority for immigration officials to refuse access to territory to anyone without valid travel documents and visas without requiring a protection assessment or providing access to UNHCR; the law also provides for deportation as a sanction for foreigners who do not possess valid passports and visas.18 Furthermore, the Government has no national asylum system in place and denies refugees and asylum-seekers the right to work.
A 2010 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration19 recognized the status and documentation issued by UNHCR to refugees and asylum-seekers and generally served as a protection tool against refoulement. In early 2016, however, the Director General of Immigration revoked the 2010 Regulation and replaced it with a new Regulation20 that affords considerably less protection space. UNHCR appreciates that the new regulation requires coordination with UNHCR for those seeking asylum in Indonesia, but is concerned by the provision granting authority to initiate communication with countries of origin.21 The 2016 Regulation also allows for administrative sanctions, including deportation, for refugees or asylum-seekers holding documentation issued by UNHCR in other countries.22 Furthermore, the 2016 Regulation states that the status of persons holding UNHCR-issued
15 UNHCR, Beyond Detention: A Global Strategy to support governments to end thedetention of asylum-seeker and refugees, 2014-2019, 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/536b564d4.html. 16 The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 28G. 17 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 39 Year 1999 Concerning Human Rights, Article 28. 18 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 Year 2011 on Immigration, Article 13 and Article 75. 19 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration No. IMI-1489.UM.08.05 Year2010. 20 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration No. IMI-0352.GR.02.07 Year 2016. 21 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration No. IMI-0352.GR.02.07 Year 2016, Article 2(3). 22 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration No. IMI-0352.GR.02.07 Year 2016, Article 14.
4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 58 of 105
refugee cards shall not be questioned as long as they do not violate domestic laws,23 whereas the 2010 Regulation extended this provision to both refugees and asylum-seekers.24
Re comme ndations : UNHCR recommends that the Government of Indonesia:
a) Accede to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol;
b) Comply with its obligation to act in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement, which is part of customary international law, and is recognized under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Indonesia ratified in 1998, including by putting in place procedures to assess an individual's needs for international protection prior to deportation;
c) Enact a comprehensive legal framework for the protection of refugees and asylumseekers in line with international human rights standards, including the Draft Presidential Regulation on the Handling of Foreign Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, which in its current form would guarantee access to territory and end the detention of refugees and asylum-seekers;
d) Consider undertaking registration of asylum-seekers jointly with UNHCR; e) Consider adopting measures to legalize the status of refugees married to Indonesians;
and f) Ensure effective access of refugees to the labour market in joint schemes with
Indonesian citizens, as a necessary component for finding comprehensive solutions and for the benefit of host communities.
Issue 3: Birth re gistration as a me asure to pre ve nt state lessness
UNHCR appreciates the Government of Indonesia’s commitment to make birth registration a national priority. Nonetheless, despite the enactment of the 2006 Citizenship Law that removed ethnic and gender discrimination related to nationality matters and introduced safeguards against statelessness for certain groups, a significant number of Indonesians continue to be at risk of statelessness due to a range of administrative barriers that prevent access to the birth registration process. According to the 2012 National Socioeconomic Survey conducted by the National Statistical Board, Indonesian children living without birth certificates reached 29 per cent of the population under 18 years of age, or over 24 million children.25
Approximately 89 stateless Rohingya children have been born in Indonesia since the 2006 Citizenship Law was enacted,26 and although the law defines children born in Indonesia from stateless parents as Indonesian citizens,27 the 2006 Ministerial Regulation that implements the law does not provide procedures for those children to acquire Indonesian nationality.28 Furthermore, a 2007 Governmental Regulation imposes heavy administrative requirements to
23 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration No. IMI-0352.GR.02.07 Year 2016, Article 3. 24 Regulation of the Director General of Immigration No. IMI-1489.UM.08.05 Year2010, Article 3(1). 25 Centre for Child Protection (PEKKA), Kajian Identitas Hukum: Jutaan Orang Hidup Tanpa Akta Kelahiran, (DFAT, PEKKA, and Puskapa UI, Jakarta: 2014), p.6. 26UNHCR Indonesia, Internal Report. 27 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12 Year 2006 on Citizenship, Article 4 point [k]. 28 Minister of Law and Human Rights, Ministerial Regulation No. M.01-HL.03.01 Year 2006, Article 2.
5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 59 of 105
file an application for nationality, which are difficult for stateless or refugee parents to meet.29
The legislation and regulations in place create administrative barriers for refugees and asylum-seekers without valid documents to register marriages with Indonesian nationals. As a result, children born of such marriages face difficulties acquiring birth certificates that include the names of both parents. In addition, refugee spouses are unable to acquire permanent residence in Indonesia as the 2011 Immigration Law requires a formal marriage certificate, as well as a valid passport and visa, for foreigners married to Indonesians to apply for residency.30
Re comme ndations : UNHCR recommends that the Government of Indonesia:
g) Accede to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness;
h) Implement universal birth registration for all children born in the country, including refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants, as a measure to prevent statelessness;
i) Establish safeguards to prevent statelessness at birth by removing administrative obstacles, simplifying birth registration procedures, reducing documentary requirements, de-linking birth registration with marriage registration and removing fines for late birth registration;
j) Implement a comprehensive legal framework and procedures to prevent statelessness, particularly for children born of stateless parents and children of mixed marriages between refugees or asylum-seekers and Indonesian nationals; and
k) Expand outreach to rural areas and lower income families to raise awareness on the importance of birth registration as a mechanism for protection of children’s human rights.
Human Rights Liaison Unit Division of International Protection UNHCR Se pte mbe r 2016
29 Government of Indonesia, Governmental Regulation No. 2 Year 2007 on Procedures of Acquiring, Releasing, Revoking and Reacquiring Indonesian Citizenship, Article 3. 30 Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 Year 2011 on Immigration, Articles 52 and 54.
6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 60 of 105

ANNEX

Excerpts of relevant Recommendations from the 2nd cycle Universal Periodic Review, Concluding Observations from UN Treaty Bodies and Recommendations of Special Procedures mandate holders
INDONESIA

We would like to bring your attention to the following excerpts from the 2nd cycle UPR recommendations, UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies’ Concluding Observations, and recommendations from UN Special Procedures mandate holders’ reports relating to issues of interest and persons of concern to UNHCR with regards to Indonesia.

I. Unive rsal Pe riodic Re view (Se cond Cycle – 2012)

Recommendation31

Recommending State/s

Sexual and gender-basedviolence and discrimination against women

108.64. Continue to make efforts to promote and protect the rights of Bahrain women;

108.65. Continue the policy to promote and protect women’s rights;

Angola

108.72. Intensify its efforts in the fight against violence against wo men and in particular against domestic violence by concluding public awareness raising, empowerment of women and rigorous capacity
development of law enforcers;

Liech ten s tein

108.73. Continue to strengthen its capacity in addressing t he is su e o f Singapore violence against women as well as children;

109.2. Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Belgium Elimination of Discrimination against Women;

Trafficking in persons

108.76. Continue its efforts with a view of preventing and eliminating of Azerbaijan trafficking in human beings;

108.77. Step up efforts to combat trafficking in persons, including: continuing the practice of developing thenational action plan and ot her strategies; considering the possibility of toughening criminal liability for crimes connected to human trafficking; studying the possibility of inviting the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children, to visit thecountry;

Belarus

108.78. Establish programmes and plans to combat trafficking in Qatar p ers o ns;

Pos ition32
Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported
Supported Supported
Supported

31 All recommendations made to Indonesia during its 2nd cycle UPR can be found in: “Report of t h e W orkin g Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia” (5 July 2012), A/HRC/21/7, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/IDSession13.aspx. 32 Indonesia’s views and replies can be found in: Addendum (5 September 2012), A/HRC/21/7/Add.1, availab le at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/IDSession13.aspx.
7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 61 of 105

108.79. Continue its ongoing efforts in tackling the issue of traffickin g Brunei Darussalam Supported in persons including prosecution of the perpetrators;

108.80. Share best practices in the wide variety of measures it has taken Greece to combat trafficking in persons;

Supported

108.81. Increase its efforts, to fight effectively against trafficking in Belgium human beings, in particular sextourisminvolving children and to adopt the draft law on the protection of domestic workers;

Supported

108.83. Further promote national efforts in countering human Sudan trafficking;

Supported

Minority’s rights and freedom of religion

108.68. Continue the efforts to fight against all forms of discrimin at io n Argentina and to respect the rights of religious minorities;

Supported

108.102. Guarantee freedomof religion or belief and the full respect o f France the rights of persons belonging to minorities;

Supported

108.103. Review laws and decrees currently in force restricting the Switzerland freedoms of religion, opinion, and of expression, in order to prevent any risk of discrimination;

Supported

108.112. Undertake measures to protect members of religio u s g rou ps, including Ahmadis, Bahais, Christians and Shias fromharassment an d acts of violence. This should commence with holding senior law enforcement accountable for their duties that include t rain in g fo r law enforcement officials at the local level to ensure an effective and adequate responseto these incidents. This would also includereviewing laws and regulations which discriminate, directly or indirect ly ag ainst one’s religion or belief, including in particular the Blasphemy Act;

Canada

Supported

Migrants’ rights

108.58. Provide more resources for implementing thenational p o licies Viet Nam and programmes in favour of social vulnerable groups like women, children, poor people, ethnic minorities and migrants;

Supported

108.137. Take diplomatic action and provide legal assistanceto pro tect Iran

(Islamic Supported

migrant workers.

Republic of)

II. Treaty Bodies
Committee on the Rights of the Child
Concluding Observations, (10 July 2014), CRC/C/IDN/CO/3-4
Birth registration, name and nationality
27. While welcoming Law No. 24 of 2014 on Civil Administration and the legal amendments entitling children of an Indonesian mother and a father who is not an Indonesian national to acquire Indonesian citizenship, the Committee is concerned about the absence of a mechanism to oversee the implementation of the legislation at all levels.
8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 62 of 105
The Committee also notes with concern that a child’s religion has to be indicated on his or her identity card, which may lead to discrimination. Furthermore, while welcoming free birth registration under national law, the Committee is concerned about:
(a) The uncertainty with regard to oversight at the central level to ensure that local governments do not charge birth registration fees despite the new law;
(b) Children risking statelessness if both parents are foreign nationals and cannot pass on their citizenship to the child owing to the law of their country.
28. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that all children born in Indonesia are registered and issued birth ce rtificates, regardless of their nationality, religion and status at birth, and that birth registration is facilitated and free of charge everywhere and under all circumstances. The Committee also recommends that the State party remove the indication of religious affiliation on identity cards and close the gap in the law which may leave some children stateless. It further recommends that the State party accede to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of State le s s ne ss.
Education, including vocational training and guidance
59. While welcoming the programme for universal education up to the age of 18, the Committee is very concerned about the large number of children of compulsory school age who are out of school, particularly in Java, and about the obstacles to access to, and quality of, education. It is particularly concerned that:
(a) Education is accessible by citizens only, which excludes children who do not have a birth certificate, refugee children and children of migrant workers. […]
60. Building on its previous re commendation (CRC/C/15/Add.223, para. 63), the Committee urges the State party to take prompt measures to ensure that quality education is accessible by all children in the State party. It further urges the State party to:
(a) Ensure that education is available to all asylum-seeking and refugee children, children of migrant workers and children who do not have a birth certificate. […]
Asylum-seeking and refugee children
65. The Committee is highly concerned about the insufficient protection for asylumseeking and refugee children, in particular about unaccompanied children being left without guardianship and not given free legal representation. Furthermore, the Committee is deeply concerned about the detention of children in immigration detention facilities for months or years, under squalid and violent conditions, without judicial review. It is particularly concerned about:
(a) Instances of severe brutality by immigration officials and guards experienced and/or witnessed by children;
(b) The extremely poor conditions in the detention facilities, including overcrowding, inadequate sanitation facilities and insufficient and bad quality food;
(c) Unaccompanied children frequently detained with unrelated adults and denied the possibility of contacting their families;
9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 63 of 105
(d) Lack of access to education and only limited access to recreation and health care.
66. In the light of its general comment No. 6 (2005) on the treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin, the Committee urges the State party to bring its immigration and asylum legislation into full compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant international standards. It further urges the State party to take all necessary measures to adequately address the situation of asylum-seeking children, and in particular:
(a) Ensure that the best interests of the child are always given primary consideration in all immigration and asylum processes and that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are provided with adequate guardianship and free legal representation;
(b) Cease the administrative practice of detaining asylum-seeking and refugee childre n;
(c) Stipulate strict behavioural rules for guards and officials at detention facilities and ensure that the facilities are regularly assessed by an independent monitoring body;
(d) Ensure that, in all circumstances, children are separated from unrelated adults, have access to sufficient food, clean drinking water and sanitation, as well as health care, education and recreation;
(e) Accede to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
Committe e on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Concluding Observations, (19 June 2014), E/C.12/IDN/CO/1
Multiple discriminations
13. The Committee is concerned at the situation of several groups who suffer multiple discriminations, including stateless persons and persons without identity documentation, religious communities and other persons displaced by conflicts and natural disasters (art. 2.2).
The Committee recommends that the State party adopt targeted policies in the 20152019 National Medium Term Development Plan for groups who experience multiple discriminations such as stateless persons and persons without identity documentation, religious communities and other persons displaced by conflicts and natural disasters, which include (a) the facilitation of the issuance of identity documents and birth and civil registration; (b) the provision of services and assistance to displaced persons and returnees; and (c) the provision of the necessary mental health services in post conflict areas.
Child marriage
22. The Committee is concerned that child marriage is still practiced in the State party. The Committee also regrets the lack of information on relevant legal control (art. 10).
10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 64 of 105
The Committee urges the State party to prevent child marriages, in law and in practice , and to ensure the effectiveness of legal control of child marriage with a view to punishing individuals performing and facilitating child marriages.
Child labour
23. The Committee is concerned about the large number of children involved in labour, including in hazardous work. The Committee is also concerned that measures taken, which in 2014 for instance seek to reach out to 15,000 children, are not commensurate with the extent of the problem which concerns millions of children (art. 10).
The Committee urges the State party to pursue its efforts aimed at combating child labour, including by (a) taking measures and investing resources commensurate with the extent of the problem; (b) ensuring effective labour inspections in the domestic work as well as in agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishery sectors, and holding employers exploiting child labour accountable; (c) providing rehabilitation to victims of child labour; and (d) undertaking awareness -raising campaigns with a view to addressing the social acceptance of the worst forms of child labour.
Violence against women
24. The Committee is concerned at the impunity associated with violence against women in the State party. It is also concerned that the Minimum Standards of Services (MSS) for survivors of violence are not effectively delivered in the State party (art. 10).
The Committe e calls on the State party to: (a) Raise awareness among law enforcement officials and relevant
professionals on the criminal nature of violence against women and for the public at large, including through a campaign of zero tolerance to such violence;
(b) Strengthen the legislation on violence against women including by penalizing all forms of sexual violence;
(c) Take the necessary measures for ensuring access to remedies for victims , including in remote areas;
(d) Allocate the necessary financial resources at the provincial and district levels for the effective delivery of the Minimum Standards of Services, and expedite the establishment of shelters for victims of violence;
(e) Improve the institutional coordination and the monitoring of M SS implementation plans.
Human Rights Committee
Concluding Observations, (21 August 2013), CCPR/C/IDN/CO/1
Sexual and gender-based violence
13. While noting the State party’s efforts to eradicate violence against women, such as the establishment of the National Commission on Violence against Women (Komnas Perempuan), the Committee is concerned at the prevalence of such violence, which is exacerbated by a culture of silence and stereotypical attitudes on the role of women in the State party. The Committee is also concerned that, while the Penal Code puts the maximum
11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 65 of 105

penalty for rape at 12 years’ imprisonment, courts in the State party impose lenient penalties on rapists (arts. 2, 3 and 7).
The State party should adopt a comprehensive approach to prevent and address violence, including domestic violence, against women in all its forms and manifestations, including through awareness-raising on its harmful effects. In this regard, the State party should adopt programmes to eradicate stereotypes regarding the role of women and to ensure that it encourages female victims of violence to report such incidents to law enforcement authorities. The State party should ensure that cases of violence against women are thoroughly investigate d, that the perpetrators are prosecuted, and if convicted, punished with appropriate sanctions, and that the victims are provided with adequate reparations. Furthermore, the State party should conduct regular training for judges and magistrates to ensure that the crime of rape is punished with appropriate pe naltie s comme nsurate to the gravity of the offe nce .
Trafficking in Persons
18. While welcoming the adoption of Law No. 21 of 2007 on eradication of trafficking in persons and noting the State party’s information that the number of trafficking cases had decreased in the period from 2011 to June 2013 (CCPR/C/IDN/Q/1/Add.1, para. 160), the Committee remains concerned at the prevalence of sex tourism and trafficking in the State party (art. 8).
The State party should intensify its efforts to identify victims of trafficking and ensure the systematic collection of data on trafficking, which should be disaggregated by age, sex and ethnic origin, and should also focus on trafficking flows from, to and in transit through its territory. The State party should intensify the provision of training programmes to police officers, border personnel, judges, lawye rs and other relevant personnel in order to raise awareness of this phenomenon and the rights of victims. Furthermore, the State party should ensure that all perpetrators of trafficking in persons are investigated, prosecuted and, if convicted, adequately sanctioned, and should guarante e that adequate prote ction, reparation and compensation is provided to victims .

Committe e on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Observations, (7 August 2012), CEDAW/C/IDN/CO/6-7

Violence against women in conflict

27.

The Committee is deeply concerned that sexual violence, especially rape, has

reportedly been a recurring form of violence against women during conflict, including the

events of 1965, the 1974-1999 conflict in the then East Timor Province, the May 1998

riots, the conflict in Aceh Province, the deployment of security and defence forces in

Maluku Province and Poso (Central Sulawesi Province) and the conflicts in East Java and

Papua Provinces. The Committee is concerned about the failure to prosecute and punish

those responsible for violations of the human rights of women committed during the

conflicts. It is further concerned about the lack of progress in providing women victims of

sexual violence with justice, truth, reparation and rehabilitation for such human rights

violations. The Committee is also concerned about the delay in finalizing and adopting the

new draft law establishing a national truth and reconciliation commission after the

12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 66 of 105

Constitutional Court, in 2006, repealed Law No. 27/2004, which had established a commission. The Committee is further concerned about reports indicating that many women and children remain internally displaced in the State party, including a large number of people recently displaced by renewed intercommunal violence in Maluku and East Java Provinces and by operations targeting rebels of the Free Papua Movement in Papua Province.

28. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e ) (f) (g)

The Committee urges the State party: To promptly investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of violence against women, including acts of sexual violence, perpetrated by private actors and by the security and defence forces, the police and militant groups, ensuring that inquiries are conducted exhaustively, impartially and transparently; To provide full and effective reparation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition, to all victims of human rights violations committed during the conflicts; To take comprehensive measures to provide medical and psychological support to women victims of violence, including sexual violence, committed during the conflicts, and to establish counselling centres for women to overcome their traumatic experiences; To adopt the new draft law providing for the establishment of a national truth and reconciliation commission and to ensure that the commission has broad powers to receive complaints and investigate grave human rights violations; To ensure the security of internally displaced women and to allocate adequate resources to meet their needs, in particular their access to a livelihood, water and education for thems elves and their children; To include women in the post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding proce s s ; To consider ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Nationality

33.

While noting with appreciation that the State party has held a campaign on

birth registration and has increased funding of provincial and district/municipal

governments administering birth registration, the Committee remains deeply concerned

that a large number of childbirths have not been registered and that the lack of information,

bureaucratic obstacles and financial barriers prevent poor and rural women from

registering births and obtaining birth certificates.

34. (a)
(b)

The Committee recommends that the State party: Ensure the effective implementation of Law No. 23/2002, on child protection, which provides that every child must be given an identity from birth and Law No. 23/2006, on population administration, which provides that the issuance of the birth certificate shall be free of charge; and establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure the enforcement of these laws; Strengthen its public awareness -raising campaigns and take concrete measures to ensure that poor and rural women are aware of the
13

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 67 of 105
requirements relating to birth registrations and certificates and are able to easily access the birth certificate and registration services provided by the Government; (c) Consider acceding to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of State le s s ne s s .
III. Special Procedures
Report of the Special Rapporte ur on adequate housing
Mission to Indonesia (26 December 2013), A/HRC/25/54/Add.1
Current housing situation and policies
Self-help housing and slum upgrading
16. According to official estimates, 80 per cent of housing development in Indonesia has been constructed through informal self-help systems of housing provision. The extent of areas officially classified as “slums” was estimated at 59,000 hectares in 2011 (23 per cent of the urban population living in slum areas in 2009) and is projected to reach 71,860 hectares by 2025 at an annual growth of 1.37 per cent. Historically, the “self-regulated” informal housing has helped the State to externalize the cost of providing low-cost housing for the poor.
17. An important part of these informal settlements is the urban kampung (village), an indigenous urban settlement mostly inhabited by lower middle class and poor people, a mixed-use highly densely populated area, for working and living. In general, kampungs are characterized by poor quality housing, lack of secure tenure, and lack of access to water, sanitation, drainage, and flood-control facilities, as well as by ambiguously defined legal status. However, housing conditions in the kampungs vary, as over time some have been connected to city facilities such as piped water, roads and drainage systems. With limited Government service provision, residents often access basic services through self-produced connections or unregulated intermediary service providers, to whom they typically pay higher fees for lower quality services.
19. Although the administrative and legal insertion of these settlements vary from city to city, as some are recognized in city plans and others are not, one portion of them is consensually classified by the State as “illegal”. These are the kampungs that are located along riverbanks, canals, railways, green paths and parks, often in flood–prone zones, in contradiction to local and national spatial plans, rendering them completely “invisible” in city plans, “illegal” and vulnerable to evictions as well as natural hazards, such as floods and earthquakes. All levels of Government refrain from implementing housing policies and programmes in these settlements and rarely invest in facilities and infrastructure. As a result, living conditions in these settlements are worse than in other types of kampungs. These settlements clearly house the poorest among the urban poor, including internal migrants without identification cards.
Forced evictions
14

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 68 of 105
57. Mass forced evictions may only be carried out under exceptional circumstances and in full accordance with international human rights law, which includes a number of strict conditions, such as (a) the obligation to provide full information on the purpose of the evictions; (b) legal remedies and legal aid to persons who are in need of seeking redress from courts; and (c) the taking of all appropriate measures to ensure adequate compensation and/or adequate alternative housing or resettlement. Evictions should not involve the use of force and should not result in individuals being rendered homeless. The solution should be reached by meaningful consultation with the affected communities to ensure that relocation results in the improvement of their standard of living or at least does not result in its deterioration. Access to housing of vulnerable groups Internal migrants 70. Despite the fact that nearly one in every four urban residents has migrated from rural areas, many of them still do not have identity cards for their current residential location and do not receive any public services (such as education and health).33 Internal migrants are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of forced evictions. In the absence of identification cards, they are denied compensation or relocation. In many cases, the Special Rapporteur heard testimonies that the only solution offered to them is relocation back to their place of origin. However, such an option is not a sustainable solution, given the concentration of economic and employment opportunities – as well as services, education and health – in urban centres, particularly in Java. 71. While it might be common practice to establish minimum residency requirements for certain forms of State assistance, location-based identification or resident cards cannot constitute a form of de jure or de facto discrimination in accessing basic services and assistance, such as access to justice (against forced eviction) or due protection. Residents should be allowed to establish residency through other forms of proof, and allowed to access compensation, alternative housing and assistance where they have suffered harm or loss through eviction.
33 World Bank, Indonesia: Urban Poverty and Program Review (January 2013), p. 7.
15

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 69 of 105

Religious minorities

72.

The Special Rapporteur is concerned with reports received about forced

relocation of religious minorities (particularly Shi’a and Ahmadiyya communities) that have

been instigated by mobs, and based on religious incitement.34 According to testimonies

presented to the Special Rapporteur during her visit, homes, schools and places of worship

have been burnt or destroyed in these attacks, forcing hundreds of families in different

communities out of their homes into temporary shelters and accommodation without access to

basic facilities, services and security.

75.

The Special Rapporteur is concerned that authorities have failed to adequately

protect these communities from forced evictions and acts of violence. She calls on the

Government to ensure that displaced communities have immediate access to essential services

such as food, clean drinking water and health services, and to guarantee their safe return to

their homes, providing them with the necessary assistance to rebuild their homes that were

damaged or destroyed.

Conclusions and recommendations :

81. To this end, the Special Rapporteur offered specific recommendations throughout the report. She also calls on the Government to consider the following: […]

Forced evictions (m) The Government of Indonesia should bring its national and municipal legislation and regulations regarding forced evictions, land acquisition and land concessions in line with inte rnational human rights law and standards;

Promoting equality and non-discrimination in access to housing (n) The Government should review and repeal national and regional laws, policies and practices which perpetuate discrimination (by State and nonState actors) in access to adequate housing of marginalized groups (such as women, LGBT people, internal migrants and religious minorities); (o) The Special Rapporteur encourages the State to ensure that victims of domestic violence across the country have access to shelters that are e as ily accessible, with priority given to female heads of households and victims of domestic violence.

34Remarks by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights during her visit to Indonesia, Jakart a,

13

November

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12781&LangID=E.

2012.

16

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 70 of 105
EXHIBIT J

Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 71 of 105

FEBRUARY 2, 2017 6:21PM EST DISPATCHES

Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat
Police, Militant Islamists Implicated in Religious Freedom Abuses

Andreas Harsono

Indonesia Researcher
andreasharsono

Acts of religious intolerance and violations of religious freedom increased in Indonesia in 2016, with the country’s religious minorities bearing the brunt of the rise.

The Setara Institute, a Jakarta-based organization that monitors religious freedom, reported an increase in acts of religious intolerance from 236 in 2015 to 270 in 2016, while religious freedom violations rose from 197 to 208.

More than half the incidents of religious intolerance – 140 – implicate government entities, including local government administrations and police. The most notorious example of religious intolerance was the complicity of Indonesian officials and police in the violent forced eviction of more than 7,000 members of the Gafatar religious community from their farms on Kalimantan island beginning in January 2016.

Two men hold the Indonesian flag as the compound of the Gafatar sect burns after being set on fire by local villagers, at Antibar village, West Kalimantan province, January 19, 2016.

https://www.hrw.org/print/299646

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 72 of 105

Non-state actors including the

© 2016 Jessica Helena Wuysang/Reuters

Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), a semi-official umbrella organization of Islamic groups, and the Islam

Defenders Front (FPI), a thuggish militant Islamist group that campaigns for imposition of Sharia (Islamic

law), were linked to 130 religious intolerance incidents. They included the MUI’s issuance in February

2016 of a fatwa, or decree, that declared Gafatar “heretical.” Setara implicated the FPI in 17 incidents of

violence against religious minorities in 2016, including Ahmadiyah and Christian congregations.

The escalation in religious intolerance and related violence can be traced back to 2005, when then President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono effectively legitimized religious intolerance by vowing strict measures against “deviant beliefs.” During his decade in office, Yudhoyono turned a blind eye to worsening acts of religious intolerance and violence by militant Islamists against religious minorities.

Indonesia’s legal system perpetuates discrimination against religious minorities. Laws include the house of worship regulation, which requires minorities to get official approval to construct or renovate houses of worship, and the blasphemy law, which punishes deviations from the six officially protected religions with up to five years in prison. The blasphemy law has been used to prosecute and imprison members of religious minorities and of traditional religions. The most recent high-profile targets of the blasphemy law include Jakarta Governor Basuki Purnama, FPI leader Rizieq Shihab and three former Gafatar leaders now on trial in Jakarta.
Until the Indonesian government eliminates these discriminatory regulations and makes clear that police and government officials will face consequences for any complicity in religious bigotry, religious freedom in Indonesia will remain in peril.

Correction

An earlier version of this news release misstated the calendar year for the Setara Institute’s documentation of incidents of violence linked to the FPI. The news release has been changed to reflect this.

Region / Country
• Asia • Indonesia

https://www.hrw.org/print/299646

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 73 of 105

Topic • Religious Freedom
More Reading

• September 25, 2017 Dispatches
Deadly Drop Boxes Fuel Philippine’s ‘War on Drugs’
• September 24, 2017 Letter
Letter from HRW To Interpol Secretary General Stock
Source URL: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-under-threat Links [1] http://setara-institute.org/kebebasan-beragamaberkeyakinan-di-indonesia-2016/ [2] http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/02/01/government-inaction-creates-space-for-rising-intolerance-inindonesia-.html [3] https://www.hrw.org/view-mode/modal/298194 [4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/29/indonesia-persecution-gafatar-religious-group

https://www.hrw.org/print/299646

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat

Page 4 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 74 of 105

[5] http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/02/03/gafatar-heretical-mui.html [6] https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/14/undoing-yudhoyonos-sectarian-legacy [7] http://jakartaglobe.id/opinion/president-yudhoyonos-blind-side-religious-violence-indonesia/ [8] https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/21/indonesias-abusive-blasphemy-law-under-fresh-scrutiny [9] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/indonesian-authorities-charge-notorious-cleric-rizieq-shihab/newsstory/ac3b6126b33b1bbb760cf5671537d04c [10] http://www.smh.com.au/world/exgafatar-leaders-charged-with-blasphemy-and-treason-in-indonesia-20160607gpd9h5.html [11] https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Religious%20Minorities%20Under%20Threat%20% 20https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-under-threat [12] https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minoritiesunder-threat [13] whatsapp://send?text=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Religious%20Minorities%20Under%20Threat%20%20-%20https% 3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-under-threat [14] mailto:?subject=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Religious%20Minorities%20Under%20Threat%20&amp;body=https% 3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-under-threat [15] http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&amp;url=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesiasreligious-minorities-under-threat&amp;title=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Religious%20Minorities%20Under%20Threat%20 [16] https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-under-threat [17] http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-underthreat&amp;title=Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat [18] https://telegram.me/share/url?url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/02/indonesias-religious-minorities-underthreat&amp;text=Indonesia’s Religious Minorities Under Threat

https://www.hrw.org/print/299646

9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 75 of 105
EXHIBIT K

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 76 of 105
INDONESIA 2016 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT
Executive Summary
The constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the right to worship according to one’s own beliefs but states citizens must accept restrictions established by law to protect the rights of others and to satisfy “just demands based upon considerations of morality, religious values, security, and public order in a democratic society.” In December the governor of Jakarta, a Christian, was charged with blasphemy for reportedly insulting the Quran. In April authorities in Aceh carried out the first implementation of the province’s special sharia law on a non-Muslim. Local authorities said the Christian woman who was caned had chosen to be punished under sharia rather than face civil punishments of fines or imprisonment, and that sharia regulations only applied to Aceh’s Muslim residents. Ahmadi Muslims reported incidents of detention, forced conversion, forced eviction, discrimination, and mosque closures. The government banned the Gafatar religious group and arrested three of its leaders for blasphemy and treason. There were reports authorities were complicit in the eviction of nearly 8,000 Gafatar members. Many religious groups outside the six officially recognized religions reported issues with identifying their religion on their national identification cards (KTP). The government took steps to address specific longstanding religious disputes, such as the displacement of Ahmadis on Bangka Island and defacement of Buddhist temples in Tanjung Balai, but not all were resolved. There were instances in which local governments and police gave in to the demands of groups, such as the Islam Defender’s Front (FPI), Islamic Community Forum (FUI), Islamic Jihad Front (FJI), and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI), which are locally labeled as “intolerant groups,” to close houses of worship for permit violations or otherwise restrict the rights of minority religious groups. The government at both the national and local levels at times reportedly failed to prevent or appropriately address intimidation and discrimination against individuals based on their religious beliefs. Both the central and local governments included elected and appointed officials from minority religious groups, and elected politicians from religious minorities served in majority Muslim districts. Some local governments imposed local laws and regulations restricting the religious freedom of minority and majority religious groups.
There were two ISIS-inspired attacks on churches, which security services said were carried out by individual, lone-wolf attackers. One attack resulted in the death of a child and the other was a knife attack on a priest. An assailant threw a

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 77 of 105

INDONESIA

2

Molotov cocktail at a Buddhist temple in November. In response to most cases of attacks on religious facilities or figures, the government apprehended the individuals involved, and together with the community condemned the attacks and called for the protection of religious minority groups. Much of civil society, including religious organizations from all faiths, worked to counter intolerant messages and ideologies and promote tolerance of minority religious groups and pluralism. “Intolerant groups,” however, disrupted religious gatherings, illegally closed houses of worship, and widely disseminated materials promoting intolerance. Shia Muslims and Christians reported threats of violence and intimidation for gathering in public or attempting to return to their hometowns to celebrate holidays.
The U.S. government advocated for religious freedom at the highest levels, with both government and civil society leaders, and spoke out publicly against discrimination and religious violence. The U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom visited in October and discussed religious freedom with a variety of government officials, civil society leaders, and religious groups in Jakarta, Banda Aceh, Bali, and Surabaya. Embassy and consulate officials engaged on specific issues, including actions against religious minorities, closures of places of worship and access for foreign religious organizations, arrests for blasphemy and defamation of religion the importance of tolerance and the rule of law, the application of sharia to non-Muslims, and religious identification requirements on national identification cards. With support from the U.S. and Indonesian governments, a nonprofit organization initiated the formation of the Indonesia-U.S. Council on Religion and Pluralism comprised of religious and civil society leaders, academics, and experts to promote interfaith dialogue and tolerance and to combat violent extremism. The embassy and consulates carried the message of respect for diversity and religious tolerance to tens of millions of people in the country through outreach efforts, including events, media interviews, social media initiatives, digital and public speaking engagements, youth exchanges, and educational programs.
Section I. Religious Demography
The U.S. government estimates the total population at 258.3 million (July 2016 estimate). According to the 2010 census, approximately 87 percent of the population is Muslim, 7 percent Protestant, 3 percent Roman Catholic, and 1.5 percent Hindu. Those identifying with other religious groups, including Buddhism, traditional indigenous religions, Confucianism, and other Christian

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 78 of 105

INDONESIA

3

denominations, and those who did not respond to the census question comprise approximately 1.3 percent of the population.
The Muslim population is overwhelmingly Sunni. An estimated one to three million Muslims are Shia. Many smaller Muslim groups exist; estimates put the total number of Ahmadi Muslims at 200,000 to 400,000.
An estimated 20 million people, primarily in Java, Kalimantan, and Papua, practice various traditional belief systems, often referred to collectively as aliran kepercayaan. There are approximately 400 different aliran kepercayaan communities throughout the archipelago. Many religious groups incorporate elements of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, making it difficult to disaggregate the exact number of followers.
There is a small Sikh population estimated at between 10,000 and 15,000, primarily in Medan and Jakarta. There are very small Jewish communities in Jakarta, Manado, Jayapura, and elsewhere. The Bahai Faith and Falun Dafa (or Falun Gong) community report thousands of members, but no independent estimates are available. The number of atheists is also unknown, but the group Indonesian Atheists states it has more than 500 members.
The province of Bali is predominantly Hindu, and the provinces of Papua, West Papua, East Nusa Tenggara, and North Sulawesi are predominantly Christian.
Section II. Status of Government Respect for Religious Freedom
Legal Framework
The constitution guarantees the right to choose and practice the religion of one’s choice and specifies that freedom of religion is a human right that cannot be limited. The constitution states, “The nation is based upon belief in one supreme God,” but guarantees all persons the right to worship according to their own religion or belief. The law restricts citizens from exercising these rights in a way that impinges on the rights of others, oversteps common moral standards and religious values, or jeopardizes security or public order.
The Ministry of Religious Affairs (MRA) extends official status to six religious groups: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. The law prohibits deliberate public statements or activities that insult or defame any of the six official religious groups, or have the intent of
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 79 of 105

INDONESIA

4

preventing an individual from adhering to an official religion. The law also stipulates that in any case of defamation of the six officially recognized religions, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA), the MRA, and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) must first warn the individual in question before he or she can be charged. The law also forbids the dissemination of information designed to spread hatred or dissension among individuals and/or certain community groups on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or race. Individuals may be prosecuted for blasphemous, atheistic, or heretical statements under either of these provisions or under the laws against defamation, and can face a maximum jail sentence of five years. The internet law forbids the electronic dissemination of the same types of information, with violations carrying a maximum six-year sentence. Religious groups other than the official six may also register with the government, making them eligible to establish a place of worship, register marriages and births, and obtain national identity cards (KTPs). Laws allow followers of beliefs outside the six recognized religious groups to leave the religion section blank on their KTPs.
Organizations representing one of the six official religious groups are not required to obtain a legal charter if they are established under a notary act and obtain approval from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. Unofficial religious organizations must obtain a legal charter as a civil society organization from the MOHA. Both ministries consult with the MRA before granting legal status to religious organizations. For an organization to be considered a religion, it must have a prophet, holy book, deity, and be recognized internationally. By law, all religious groups must be registered in some form. Under the law, civil society organizations are required to uphold the national ideology of Pancasila, which encompasses the principles of belief in one God (although Buddhism and Hinduism are official religions), justice, unity, democracy, and social justice, and they are prohibited from committing blasphemous acts or spreading religious hatred. Violations of the law could result in a loss of legal status, dissolution of the organization, and arrest of members under the blasphemy law or other applicable laws. Indigenous religious groups may also register with the Ministry of Education and Culture as aliran kepercayaan rather than as religious organizations.
A joint ministerial decree bans both proselytizing by the Ahmadi Muslim community and vigilantism against the group. Violation of the proselytizing ban carries a maximum five-year prison sentence on charges of blasphemy. No Ahmadis have ever been charged with blasphemy, but provincial and local regulations based on this decree place tighter restrictions on Ahmadis than on recognized religious groups. The proselytizing ban does not prohibit Ahmadi Muslims from worshipping or continuing to practice within their community.
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 80 of 105

INDONESIA

5

The government requires all officially registered religious groups to comply with directives from the MRA and other ministerial directives on issues such as construction of houses of worship, foreign aid to domestic religious institutions, and propagation of religion.
According to a joint ministerial decree, religious groups seeking to build a house of worship are required to obtain the signatures of at least 90 members of the group and 60 persons of other religious groups in the community stating they support the construction. Local governments are in charge of implementing the decree, and local regulations, implementation, and enforcement vary widely. The decree also requires approval from the local interfaith council, the Religious Harmony Forum (FKUB). Government-established FKUBs exist at the city or district level and comprise religious leaders from the six official religious groups. They are responsible for mediating interreligious conflicts.
The law requires religious instruction in public schools. Students have the right to request religious instruction in any one of the six official religions. Individuals are not allowed to opt out of religious education requirements.
Under the terms of a 2005 peace agreement that ended a separatist conflict, Aceh Province has unique authority to implement sharia regulations. The law allows for provincial implementation and regulation of sharia, and extends the jurisdiction of religious courts to economic transactions and criminal cases. Aceh’s provincial sharia regulations criminalize homosexuality, adultery, gambling, consumption of alcohol, and proximity to members of the opposite sex outside of marriage for Muslim residents of the province. An Aceh governor’s decree forbids women from working in or visiting restaurants unaccompanied by their spouse or a male relative after 9:00 p.m. A Banda Aceh mayoral decree forbids women from working in coffee shops, internet cafes, or sports venues after 10:00 p.m. Female Muslim residents of Aceh are prohibited from wearing tight pants in public and must wear headscarves. One district in Aceh prohibits women from sitting astride motorcycles when riding as passengers. A new criminal code that took effect in Aceh during the year calls for caning of those convicted of homosexuality, adultery, and other offenses. The maximum penalties for violations of sharia regulations include imprisonment and public caning. There are also regulations limiting the amount of force that may be applied during a caning.
Many local governments outside of Aceh have enacted regulations based on religious considerations. Most of these are in majority Muslim areas, although
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 81 of 105

INDONESIA

6

local governments in non-Muslim majority areas also have enacted regulations based on religious considerations. Many of these regulations relate to matters such as religious education and only apply to a specific religious group. Some religiously inspired local regulations in effect, however, apply to all citizens. For instance, some local regulations require restaurants to close during Ramadan fasting hours, ban alcohol, or mandate the collection of zakat (Islamic alms). Other local regulations forbid or limit the religious activities of minority religious groups, especially Shia and Ahmadi Muslims.
The marriage law does not explicitly forbid interfaith marriage, but it contains an article stipulating that a marriage must be performed according to the rituals of a religion that is shared by both the bride and groom. This means that a man and woman of different religions who seek to marry may have difficulties finding a religious official willing to perform a wedding ceremony.
The law allows a Muslim man to have up to four wives, provided he is able to support each equally. For a man to take a second, third, or fourth wife, he must obtain court permission and the consent of the first wife. These conditions, however, are not always met in practice.
The marriage law makes polygamy illegal for civil servants, except in limited circumstances. Government regulations require Muslim male civil servants to receive permission from a government official and their first wives prior to marrying a second, third, or fourth wife, and prohibit female civil servants from becoming second, third, or fourth wives.
The law requires the leader of an aliran kepercayaan group must prove there are group members in at least three regencies before legally officiating a wedding. This constraint effectively bars believers of some smaller groups without such geographic presence from receiving official marriage services from a member of their faith, although groups can aid each other and facilitate marriages by a group with a similar faith tradition and rituals.
A joint ministerial decree requires domestic religious organizations to obtain approval from the MRA to receive funding from overseas donors and forbids dissemination of religious literature and pamphlets to members of other religious groups as well as going door to door for the purposes of converting others.

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 82 of 105

INDONESIA

7

Foreign religious workers must obtain religious worker visas, and foreign religious organizations must obtain permission from the MRA to provide any type of assistance (in-kind, personnel, or financial) to local religious groups.
The country is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Government Practices
There were arrests and charges for blasphemy and insulting religion, including charges filed against the governor of Jakarta for insulting the Quran and a man charged in Central Java who reportedly tore apart the Quran. In Aceh, there were public canings by local officials for sharia violations, including for the first time of a non-Muslim. There were reports of government attempts of forced conversions of Ahmadi Muslims to Sunni Islam. Members of the Ahmadi Muslim community on Bangka Island were threatened with forced expulsion from the island in January for not converting. The government banned the Gafatar group and there were reports authorities were complicit in the eviction of nearly 8,000 members from their homes. The government took steps to address certain longstanding religious disputes, including the displacement of Ahmadis on Bangka Island and defacement of Buddhist temples in Tanjung Balai, but not all were resolved. There were instances where local governments and police gave in to the demands of “intolerant groups” to close houses of worship for permit violations, or otherwise restrict the rights of minority religious groups. The National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) reported the government at both the national and local levels at times failed to prevent or appropriately address intimidation and discrimination against individuals based on their religious beliefs. Reportedly people who left the religion portion of their identity card blank were denied public services at times.
The Setara Institute, a domestic nongovernmental organization (NGO) that conducts advocacy and research on religious and political freedom, stated the central government made efforts to reaffirm constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, promote tolerance, and prevent religiously motivated violence. It also stated the central government did little to intervene at the local level or solve past religious conflicts through its mandate to enforce court rulings, override unconstitutional local regulations, or otherwise uphold the constitutional and legal protections afforded to minority religious groups. Local governments selectively enforced blasphemy laws, permitting regulations, and other local regulations in ways that affected various religious groups. For example, local governments issued decrees banning Ahmadi and Shia teachings, and reportedly did not act
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 83 of 105

INDONESIA

8

when threats were made against these groups. Government officials and police sometimes failed to prevent “intolerant groups” from infringing on others’ religious freedoms and committing other acts of intimidation. Police did not always actively investigate and prosecute crimes by members of “intolerant sectarian groups.” President Joko Widodo publicly stated he expected the police to protect religious communities of all faiths when the new National Police Chief Tito Karnavian was inaugurated in June.
The Setara Institute reported 44 cases of government abuses of religious freedom between January and August, compared to 70 cases in the first eight months of 2015. Abuses cited included the closure of houses of worship and statements by public officials that condoned violence towards minorities, especially Ahmadi Muslims and members of the Gafatar group.
On April 12, a 60-year-old Christian woman was caned in Aceh for selling alcohol, marking the first time a non-Muslim was punished under Aceh’s special shariabased law. A ban on selling alcohol is both a local and sharia regulation that applies to all residents of the province. Muslims who violate the ban are punished under sharia while non-Muslims may choose to be punished under either sharia or civil procedures. Aceh provincial officials in charge of sharia law enforcement stated the woman chose to be punished under sharia rather than the criminal statutes, which may carry fines and imprisonment. Authorities in Aceh issued a public statement saying sharia did not apply to non-Muslims, foreigners, or Muslim Indonesians not resident in Aceh. In October Aceh authorities also publicly caned 13 men and women for violating sharia laws on proximity and intimacy, such as touching, hugging, and kissing between unmarried people. Aceh’s deputy mayor said that one 22-year-old woman who was pregnant was granted a temporary reprieve to be carried out after she gave birth.
The MRA maintained its authority at both the national and local level to conduct “development” of religious groups and believers, including efforts to convert minority religious groups to Sunni Islam. In several West Java regencies, local governments continued efforts to force or encourage conversion of Ahmadi Muslims with a requirement that Ahmadis sign forms renouncing their beliefs in order to register their marriages or participate in the Hajj.
On January 5, the Regent of Bangka Belitung issued a letter threatening to expel 22 Ahmadi families from Bangka Island where they had lived for decades. The regent gave the families a deadline to convert to Sunni Islam or leave their homes, saying the Ahmadi Muslims were upsetting local community members and threatened
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 84 of 105

INDONESIA

9

local peace and stability. According to news reports, Ahmadi children also received death threats and on February 5, the Ahmadis left their homes. The regency said its decision to expel the Ahmadis was based on a meeting with the FKUB and on a joint agreement signed by three local ministers. On February 10, then National Police Chief Badrodin Haiti gave orders to Bangka police to protect Ahmadi families from expulsion from the island, and instructed police chiefs throughout the country to prevent acts of coercion or violence against Ahmadis. After these efforts the local government and Ahmadi community said the issue was resolved. Some Ahmadis chose to move to other regions with larger Ahmadi populations.
On March 23, the MRA, MOHA, and AGO released a joint decree banning Gafatar and all associated groups, saying the group’s teachings constituted a deviant form of Islam. On May 25, police arrested the founder and two top leaders of Gafatar on accusations the group was creating a separatist state. The police stated the group would face blasphemy and treason charges. As of the end of the year, the three individuals were awaiting trial.
According to a Human Rights Watch report in May, government officials and security forces were complicit in the forced eviction of 7,000 Gafatar members from their homes after the local government declared Gafatar to be an illegal organization that must disband its activities. The NGO said in other cases security forces prevented attacks on Gafatar members but only by forcibly evacuating them from Kalimantan to Java, then arbitrarily detaining, interrogating, and threatening them with criminal charges. Gafatar members indicated the number of evicted members was closer to 8,000 by year’s end and that many of those forced to move to Central and East Java were unable to obtain new KTPs after authorities had confiscated their previous identity cards during their stays in shelters. Reportedly, some were forced to undergo reeducation programs or mandatory all-day “patriotic education.” On January 19, approximately 1,200 Gafatar members were forced to evacuate their village in Mempawah Regency, West Kalimantan after a mob set fire to nine homes.
On June 14, police detained eight Ahmadis on Lombok for participating in Ramadan prayers in their village’s Sunni mosque. According to media reports, police detained the Ahmadis “for their own protection.” An Ahmadi spokesperson said police had asked members of the Ahmadi congregation to sign a letter denouncing their beliefs. The Ahmadi community refused to sign but agreed not to gather together in one place or carry out Ramadan prayers in public mosques with Sunnis. The eight detained were subsequently released. Village authorities also
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 85 of 105

INDONESIA

10

reportedly forced the Ahmadi members to surrender all Ahmadi-related books and forbade Ahmadi preachers from other regions from entering the village. Approximately 200 Ahmadis remained internally displaced in cramped apartments in the main city of Mataram after a mob expelled them from their Lombok village in 2006.
On July 29, a mob looted or burned down 12 Buddhist temples in Tanjung Balai, North Sumatra, after a Buddhist woman of Chinese descent asked the Al Maksum Mosque to lower its loudspeaker volume. President Joko Widodo publicly condemned the act and called upon regional leaders to promote “unity in diversity” and build a tolerant society. He also sent the chief of national police to the city in an effort to contain the situation. Other local and national leaders, including Vice President Jusuf Kalla, called for greater religious and racial tolerance in North Sumatra. More than 20 local government, religious, and ethnic leaders representing the Muslim and ethnic Chinese communities signed a formal memorandum of understanding committing to promote harmony between different religions and ethnicities and supporting law enforcement action against those who would disturb interfaith relations. Police reported the arrests of 21 young men who were directly involved in the incident.
In December the Governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (known as “Ahok”), the first Christian governor of Jakarta in more than 50 years, was charged with blasphemy for defaming the Quran during a campaign speech in September in which he told a crowd of voters it was wrong to manipulate verses from the Quran for political gain. The speech was met with criticism from the FPI, the Indonesia Ulema Council (MUI), and other Muslim groups who filed a police complaint to launch an investigation. Minister of Religious Affairs Lukman Hakim Saifuddin said, “Let the police resolve the matter in a civilized manner, without Muslims being provoked and aggravated.” On November 4, an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 people participated in a protest in Jakarta organized by the FPI and other groups calling for Ahok’s arrest for blasphemy. The protest ended in riots that injured more than 100 people, and on November 16, authorities officially named Ahok a suspect. On December 2, a reported 200,000 to 450,000 people rallied in Jakarta in a second protest against the governor. Ahok apologized but denied he committed blasphemy, saying he had no intention to insult the Quran and that his comments were directed at his political opponents, not Islam.
On October 31, police in Central Java charged a man with blasphemy because he reportedly tore apart the Quran. Police said the man tore his girlfriend’s Quran as

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 86 of 105

INDONESIA

11

an act of jealousy during an argument. The man reportedly converted to Islam in December and as of the end of the year was waiting for trial.
Members of minority religious groups continued to seek official recognition from the government.
On July 26, the local government closed an Ahmadi mosque in Sukabumi, West Java. According to the local officials, the closure was undertaken to preserve public order following complaints against the mosque’s Ahmadi affiliation.
East Java Ahmadi leaders said a village leader shut down their mosque in rural Tulungagung in January, citing a 2011 decision by East Java Governor Soekarwo to freeze Ahmadi activities. Ahmadis stated the local leader, supported by local police, had misinterpreted a freeze (which would not have affected private activities) as a ban (which would have required the group to stop practicing its faith altogether). The mosque remained closed at year’s end.
Ahmadis reported feeling under constant threat from militant groups. An Ahmadi mosque in South Jakarta remained officially closed by the local government after a July 2015 incident in which members of the FPI blocked the entrance of the Ahmadi headquarters building and mosque. Ahmadis said legal uncertainty among local officials and police, anonymous threats of violence, insufficient police protection, and fear of publicity were the barriers to reopening the building.
There were other cases of local governments, sometimes supported by police, closing houses of worship of minority groups for permit violations, often after protests from “intolerant groups” even if the minority groups had a proper permit. NGOs estimated, however, that as many as 85 percent of houses of worship, the majority of which are Sunni mosques, were operating without a permit. Many houses of worship operated without permits in office buildings, malls, private homes, and shops. Some houses of worship that were established before the joint ministerial decree on house of worship construction came into effect were still obligated to meet the requirements or face closure.
Mayor of Bandung Ridwan Kamil issued a ruling that an “intolerant group’s” December 6 disbandment of a large Christmas service held at a public convention center was against the law. He demanded the Muslim group, Pembela Ahli Sunnah, issue a formal apology.

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 87 of 105

INDONESIA

12

National Police Chief Karnavian said an MUI fatwa prohibiting Muslims from wearing Christmas attire was not a law in the country and instructed police to arrest members of “intolerant groups” who conducted raids to enforce the fatwa. Karnavian reprimanded local police who circulated leaflets based on the MUI edict but said the police would not tolerate companies or store owners who forced their employees to wear Christmas attire. Karnavian’s remarks came after reports FPI members, accompanied by about 200 police officers, went to shopping malls in Surabaya to remind businesses not to require Muslim employees to wear Christmas attire such as Santa hats. President Joko Widodo and Minister of Religious Affairs Saifuddin also urged the public to respect Christians and to be tolerant of the country’s diverse religious groups.
Minority religious groups reported difficulty in meeting permit requirements for new and existing houses of worship and stated local government officials declined to approve construction permits, in one case for more than 15 years for a church. Many could not obtain the requisite number of outside signatures supporting the construction and often faced protest from “intolerant groups” making getting permits nearly impossible. Even when permits were attained, some houses of worship were forced to close or halt construction after facing legal challenges and public protest. Churches also reported “intolerant groups” forced them to pay protection money to continue operating without a permit.
On March 7, approximately 700 protesters who said they represented the Bekasi Islamic Outreach Forum marched to the construction site of Santa Clara Catholic Church in Bekasi to protest its construction. Local police protected the site and in general kept protesters under control. Minister of Religious Affairs Saifuddin issued a statement urging the dispute to be resolved through peaceful dialogue rather than through “excessive force aimed at disturbing interfaith harmony.” Construction of the church was still in progress as of the end of the year.
An Indonesian Christian Church (GKI) congregation in Bogor, West Java, continued negotiating issues related to its building permit after it was closed in 2010 by local authorities who complied with public pressure to close the church. The national ombudsman previously tried unsuccessfully to convince Bogor Mayor Bima Arya to uphold a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the congregation in its dispute with the local government over the building permit. The congregation regularly held services outside of the Presidential Palace.
Across the eastern part of the country, the requirement to cite support from 90 followers and 60 nonadherent neighbors to build a place of worship was not
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 88 of 105

INDONESIA

13

followed in practice. Balinese Christians and Muslims stated the official requirement to cite a specific number of supporters was undermined, either because governments did not issue permits when the requisite numbers were obtained or because neighbors were pressured to not approve. In many local cases, a few vocal opponents from the local majority religious affiliation were reportedly sufficient to stop construction approvals. State-recognized religious leaders in government-supported interfaith forums reportedly found ways to block aliran kepercayaan believers from constructing places of worship, largely through stringent house of worship permit requirements. Aliran kepercayaan adherents said they were fearful of being accused of atheism were they to fight this in court. Other religious minorities such as Ahmadi and Shia Muslims and Christians faced problems even when seeking approval to move to temporary facilities while a primary place of worship underwent renovation. Protestant leaders said local and provincial governments did not understand different Christian denominations and were suspicious when members of congregations traveled far to attend church instead of going to whatever church was closest to their residence. Religious minority communities said administrative suspicions and inaction blocked renovation or construction of new facilities even when they fulfilled the legal prerequisites.
Civil rights activists said locally implemented sharia-based regulations violated the constitution and called on the central government to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to revoke or review these regulations. A 2014 law reaffirmed the MOHA’s authority to revoke local regulations concerning religious matters that violated the constitution or national law, but there were no reports the MOHA had exercised this authority.
In May sharia police officers, who are part of the Aceh provincial government’s sharia implementation apparatus, stopped dozens of women in Lhokseumawe who were not riding motorcycles sidesaddle, and reprimanded approximately 100 people, both men and women, who were not dressed according to sharia regulations.
On July 4, Armed Forces Commander Gatot Nurmantyo issued an order to allow female soldiers to wear hijabs. In August a fifth-grade student at a state elementary school in Christian-majority Jayapura was given a written warning not to wear a hijab in school on the grounds that it was not in line with the school’s uniform.

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 89 of 105

INDONESIA

14

In May the police chiefs of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area and East Aceh issued directives forbidding “intolerant groups” from conducting sweeps of food stalls open for business before sundown during Ramadan.
Aliran kepercayaan followers said they were pressured to send their children to a religious education class of one of the six recognized religions. Bahai followers said schools often allowed their children to spend religious education time in study hall, but parents were required to sign documents stating their children received official religious education. Ahmadi Muslim students reported religion classes for Islam only focused on Sunni teaching.
Civil servants who openly professed an adherence to an indigenous belief system said they had difficulty getting promoted.
Although the government generally allowed citizens to leave the religion column blank on their KTPs, some members of minority religious groups reported difficulties accessing government services and experiencing other forms of discrimination if they exercised this right. The lack of a KTP led to issues ranging from an inability to register for health insurance to problems applying for mortgages. Faced with this problem, many religious minority members reportedly chose to identify as a member of an officially recognized religion that is close to their beliefs or reflects the locally dominant religion. This practice obscured the real number of adherents to any particular religious group in government statistics. The government continued to allow aliran kepercayaan believers to omit religious information on their identity cards, but when accessing basic social services other government forms did not always permit leaving this section blank.
Several NGOs and religious advocacy groups continued to urge the government to delete the religion field from the identity cards. Religious minorities reported they sometimes faced discrimination after others saw their religious affiliation on the KTP. Members of the Jewish community said they felt uncomfortable stating their religion on their KTPs and often chose to state that they were Christians. According to a report in the Jakarta Post, followers of Javanese faith Sapto Darmo reported they were prohibited from burying the remains of their family members in public cemeteries after community members realized they did not identify as one of the six official religions on their KTP. Members of the indigenous Parmalim faith also reported being refused KTPs when the officials who processed their registration application saw that they did not declare a religion. Data from an NGO showed approximately 42,000 followers of several traditional faiths were denied basic civil registry documentations such as KTPs, birth certificates, and
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 90 of 105

INDONESIA

15

marriage licenses, and approximately 80,000 could not access public services. In response, the MOHA said members of indigenous religions were entitled to the same access to basic services, regardless of what they did or did not declare as their religion on their KTP, and that such discrimination was a violation of the law.
Minority Muslim groups also continued to report resistance when they tried to apply for KTPs as Muslims. Many Ahmadis continued to be able to acquire KTPs listing their religion as Islam; Ahmadis in Jakarta, however, reportedly faced difficulties acquiring KTPs, effectively denying them access to public services. Like other religious minorities, Ahmadis and Shia reported discrimination in the administration of public services if they chose to leave the religion column blank on their KTPs. Bahai followers also reported difficulties, as many local officials were unaware of the option to leave the religion section blank and refused to issue the KTP.
Both the central and local governments included elected and appointed officials from minority groups. For example, the Governor of Jakarta was a Protestant, the Mayor of Solo was a Catholic, and a leading Shia figure held a seat in the House of Representatives, elected from a majority Sunni district in Bandung, West Java. As of July, President Joko Widodo’s 34-member cabinet included five members of minority faiths.
Foreign religious workers stated they found it relatively easy to obtain visas. Despite laws restricting proselytizing, foreign religious groups reported little government interference with preaching or religious conversions. Police provided special protection to some churches in major cities during Sunday services and Christian holidays.
Section III. Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom
One child was killed and three children were injured in what security officials said was a lone-wolf ISIS-inspired attack on November 13 when a former terrorist prisoner detonated a Molotov cocktail in front of a church in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, following a Sunday service. The suspect was arrested and the president called for a thorough investigation and condemned religious violence. Investigation into the attack remained ongoing.
On August 29, a man attacked a priest holding Mass at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Medan. The man had failed to detonate a homemade suicide bomb and instead assaulted the priest with a knife before being overpowered by parishioners. Police
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 91 of 105

INDONESIA

16

said the man was a lone-wolf attacker who was inspired by ISIS propaganda online, had a connection with an Indonesian in Syria, and was not motivated by sectarian tensions within Indonesia. The priest suffered minor injuries. Government officials and Muslim community leaders condemned the attack.
A Molotov cocktail was thrown at a Buddhist temple in Singkawang, West Kalimantan early in the morning on November 14. The government spoke out against religious intolerance, offered protection and assurances for the religious community affected, and as of the end of the year, had questioned eight people as part of an investigation into the incident, according to media reports.
NGOs warned of rising anti-Shia sentiment in East Java, the heartland of the Nahdlatul Ulema (NU) Sunni Muslim organization. According to reports, local NU-affiliated imams continued to block reconciliation and the return of Shia internally displaced people (IDPs) to their homes in a case that has continued for several years. Several days before Eid al-Fitr, certain local Sunnis in East Java prevented hundreds of Shia IDPs from returning to their homes on Madura for the holiday. They threatened to kill Shia who tried to return and harm people who assisted them. No violent clashes were reported during this event, but there were no reports of Shia being able to return home because of the intimidation and threats of violence. More than 300 Shia reportedly remained displaced and unable to return to Madura. Anti-Shia rhetoric was also common in some online media outlets and on social media.
On April 1, hundreds of people calling themselves the Aswaja (Adherents to the Sunnah and the Community), a loose coalition of a number of NU and Persatuan (an Islamic educational organization) schools, broke up a gathering of 100 Shia women in Pasuruan district south of Surabaya. The women were celebrating the birthday of the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima, an important event in Shia tradition. Police, military, and district public order forces who were present to safeguard the event responded to Aswaja’s demands, and after two hours the Shia dispersed.
On April 6, more than 10,000 Shia from East Java gathered in Bondowoso for a religious commemoration, despite vows by 3,000 anti-Shia protestors to disrupt the event. According to local media, security forces deployed 1,751 police and military to prevent the protestors from disrupting the Shia gathering. The local police chief attended the Shia events as an observer to help prevent clashes, according to a Shia leader.

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 92 of 105

INDONESIA

17

In Christian-majority North Maluku, on August 24, seven members of the Shia Jafariyah congregation led by Nawawi Husni were subject to intimidation by local residents after holding a religious event in Marikurubu Subdistrict. Local police were deployed to ensure the safety of the Shia members. The police later evacuated the congregation to the police headquarters after local residents tried to damage their houses. The Shia eventually returned safely to their homes.
Members of Manado’s small Jewish community reported being intimidated by their Christian neighbors after a weekly Shabbat observance.
People affiliated at the local level with the MUI used rhetoric religious minorities considered intolerant. The MUI issued edicts against members of Gafatar in February. On June 13, the MUI protested the clothing worn by two female hosts of a Ramadan television show, stating it depicted Christian crosses. On August 25, the MUI and FPI protested the uniforms of a group of people raising the national flag in Banten, stating their uniforms depicted the Christian cross.
In March a group of church leaders in a Christian-majority region of Papua called on local officials in the highland town of Wamena to prevent the expansion of an existing mosque, ban the use of mosque loudspeakers, prohibit the wearing of headscarves in public, and stop forcing Papuan children to attend Islamic boarding schools. Several prominent Papuan religious leaders disavowed the petition of the Wamena churches as harmful to religious harmony. Komnas HAM called on the church groups to revoke the petition but agreed that Papuan children, the majority of whom are Christian, should not be forcibly sent to Islamic boarding schools. Papuan provincial Governor Lukas Enembe convened a meeting with the Papuan FKUB, religious leaders, and police to call on all sides to engage in interfaith dialogue to prevent any further escalation.
Religious minorities in Bali stated the close association of Balinese traditional culture with Balinese Hinduism created problems for Balinese who converted to Christianity, Islam, or another religion. Religious minority leaders reported Balinese women could maintain their family and social ties after converting to a new religion under recently introduced laws articulating the rights of inheritance and custody, but the laws were ignored in practice. Balinese men who converted to a new religion faced social banishment and loss of inheritance rights.
According to news reports, unknown perpetrators vandalized an Ahmadi mosque in Purworejo village, Kendal Regency, Central Java Province on May 23. The Ahmadi congregation had been in an ongoing dispute with local leaders over the
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 93 of 105

INDONESIA

18

construction of the mosque and the local Ahmadi leader cited a recent argument with the local village head as the provocation for the incident. On May 25, the local government facilitated mediation and the Ahmadis agreed to halt construction on the mosque pending a police investigation. Following the police investigation, the local village leader initiated a community effort to reconstruct the mosque, and police publicly stated they would protect the Ahmadi’s right to worship in the community.
Many in the media, civil society, and the general population were vocal and active in protecting and promoting tolerance and pluralism. NGOs reported large numbers of Christian-to-Muslim and Muslim-to-Christian conversions, particularly in urban centers and the province of West Java. Many people who converted faced discrimination. The largest and most influential religious groups and NGOs, including the two largest Islamic groups in the country – NU and Muhammadiyah, with some 40 and 30 million members, respectively – officially endorsed and advocated for tolerance, pluralism, and the protection of minority groups. On April 9, for instance, NU Chairman Said Aqil Siradj publicly called on all NU members to uphold tolerance and moderate values as part of Islam. Muhammadiyah Chairman Haedar Nasir called on Indonesians to respect other religions and reject all communal violence after the August temple burnings in Tanjung Balai. “Intolerant groups” that were accused of using religion to justify criminal activity and vigilantism, however, continued to take actions against minority religious groups, including intimidation, extortion, vandalism, and protest. “Intolerant groups” reportedly accept bribes to advance corrupt political and business interests through their protests and actions. Komnas HAM stated “intolerant groups” in West Java extorted “hundreds of millions” of rupiah (thousands of dollars) from churches by threatening to vandalize and protest outside churches if they did not comply.
Leaders of the High Council of Indonesian Traditional Belief Adherents reported their numbers were in decline, largely due to formal and informal discrimination from government practices and societal attitudes.
Religious groups cooperated with each other and with other organizations on interfaith conferences and events, advocating for respect and tolerance, and speaking out against violence. For instance, NU Deputy Secretary General Imam Pituduh told the Jakarta Post members of the organization’s youth wing “will be at the forefront of protecting Christian fellow citizens while conducting prayers and activities ahead of Christmas. This is in the name of tolerance.” A local Hindu leader in Bali suggested the people of Denpasar participate in the takbiran, which
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 94 of 105

INDONESIA

19

are festivities that occur the night before Eid al-Fitr. An estimated 1,500 nonMuslims in Denpasar participated. Muhammadiyah maintained an interfaith humanitarian network, and throughout the country, FKUB chapters took steps to affirm religious pluralism by mediating interreligious conflicts. Christians in Maluku provided free rides for Muslims going to prayer services during Eid al-Fitr after Muslims offered Christians rides to attend Christmas Eve services and safeguarded their churches during religious services in December 2015.
Section IV. U.S. Government Policy
The U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, the Consulate General in Surabaya, and the Consulate in Medan regularly engaged with all levels of the government on specific religious freedom issues, such as actions against religious minorities; closures of places of worship; arrests for blasphemy and defamation of religion; the undue influence of “intolerant groups” and the importance of the rule of law; the application of sharia to non-Muslims; religious registration requirements on KTPs; the importance of education and interfaith dialogue in promoting tolerance; and promotion of tolerance in international forums. During his October visit, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom conducted public outreach and met with government, NGO, and religious leaders in Jakarta, Banda Aceh, Bali, and Surabaya to discuss the importance of promoting religious freedom and protecting the rights of all in the country, a message he also underscored through public outreach events.
Representatives of the embassy, consulate general, and consulate spoke publicly about the importance of religious tolerance and protecting minorities from acts of violence. Embassy staff at all levels met frequently with religious leaders, representatives of social organizations, and human rights advocates to clarify U.S. policy in support of religious freedom, discuss religious tolerance, and promote respect for religion. Embassy and consulate officials also met with members of minority religious groups who were victims of religious intolerance.
The United States-Indonesia Society, a nonprofit organization endorsed by the U.S. and Indonesian governments, collaborated with Indonesian and U.S. religious leaders to launch the Indonesia-U.S. Council on Religion and Pluralism in Yogyakarta on August 10-11. The nongovernmental council convened a diverse group of experts, academics, and religious and civil society leaders to promote interfaith dialogue, pluralism, and tolerance, and to combat violent extremism in both countries.

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 95 of 105

INDONESIA

20

The embassy held numerous events at its cultural center venues that directly and indirectly supported religious freedom. For example, the embassy sponsored a series designed for local audiences to hear directly from prominent local Muslims about their experiences in the United States. An August event in the series focused on the 2016 presidential election and discussed its relation to religious freedom. An Indonesian American imam and a local representative of the Center for Strategic and International Studies discussed the inclusion and involvement of the U.S. Muslim community in the presidential election, and broader themes of fundamental American values such as freedom of religion. Two local TV stations and three print media outlets covered the event.
Embassy and consulate staff appeared on a number of nationally televised programs to discuss themes related to religious tolerance and diversity. Previous participants in U.S. government-funded student exchange programs appeared with embassy and consulate officials to provide accounts of their experiences in the United States including religious tolerance. Embassy and consulate personnel also led discussions and gave presentations at venues throughout the country, conveying the importance of diversity and religious tolerance to thousands of high school, Islamic boarding school, and university students. Collectively, these outreach activities carried messages of religious tolerance and religious freedom to tens of millions of viewers.
During Ramadan, embassy and consulate staff held numerous events and outreach activities that promoted religious tolerance. The embassy again sponsored a team of reporters who visited the United States to create news and documentary stories on topics that included U.S. religious life. The stories were again featured as part of the Muslim Travelers reality show during Ramadan and received an award in 2015 from the Indonesian Broadcasters Association for Best Ramadan Program. Muslim Travelers videos can be viewed on the embassy’s YouTube page. The embassy hosted iftars to advocate for tolerance and pluralism through remarks and discussions to a wide cross section of society, including political figures, civil society representatives, and students.
Embassy and consulate staff conducted extensive print, TV, and digital outreach, including the Ambassador’s Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr greeting videos and other religious pluralism initiatives that reached millions of individuals throughout the country. The embassy continued to manage a regular English language-learning column titled “Miss Understanding” on Facebook that aimed to promote religious freedom, diversity, and pluralism. The embassy, consulate general, and consulate also sponsored study exchanges and other civil society programs focusing on
International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 96 of 105

INDONESIA

21

religious pluralism and tolerance, including programs for rising leaders and scholars.

International Religious Freedom Report for 2016 United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 97 of 105
EXHIBIT L

Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 98 of 105

MAY 10, 2017 6:00AM EDT

Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

By Jailing Ahok for Blasphemy, Judges Have Sent a Chilling Message Published in The Guardian

Andreas Harsono

Indonesia Researcher
andreasharsono

The Jakarta court that sentenced governor Basuki “Ahok” Purnama to two years’ imprisonment for blasphemy against Islam has sent a chilling message to non-Muslims in Indonesia. How could religious freedom slowly decline in Indonesia? And how could political Islam shape the country?

Ahok, himself a Christian, is the biggest political figure to be victimised under the blasphemy law. He is not only the Jakarta governor, backed by Indonesia’s

Governor Basuki “Ahok” Purnama after the sentencing in his blasphemy trial in Jakarta on May 9, 2017.
© 2017 Reuters

biggest political party, but he’s also an ally of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. Ahok and Jokowi were

the dream team: Jokowi with vision, Ahok doing daily management.

https://www.hrw.org/print/303512

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 99 of 105

Ahok’s imprisonment is a big blow for the president. He too might expect to be called infidel, kafir – a term used by Islamists to describe their fellow Muslim opponents.

Indonesia’s transition from dictatorship to democracy has created space for more freedom of expression for all Indonesians, including Islamists. Emboldened by the government’s inaction on discrimination and violence against religious minorities, over the last 19 years Islamists have increasingly sought to enforce laws like the blasphemy law more strictly to “protect” Islam and move Indonesia from a secular to an Islamic state.

Indonesia’s 1945 constitution guarantees freedom of religion. But in January 1965, then-President Sukarno issued a presidential decree that prohibited individuals from being hostile toward other religions. Sukarno decreed that Indonesia was to protect six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism. Sukarno never used that law. He lost power in October 1965.

General Suharto, who ruled Indonesia from 1965 to 1998, used the blasphemy law only a handful of times. Three of his successors – B.J. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Sukarnoputri – never used it.

The law only became an issue when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono succeeded Megawati in 2004. Yudhoyono strengthened the blasphemy law offices,

The verdict paints a frightening future for moderate Muslims and non-Muslims who believe in Indonesia’s pluralist society.

which were under the Attorney

General’s Office, by creating branches in every province and regency. He also took no action against

emerging Islamist militant groups that engage in threats and violence against religious minorities. During

his decade in power, Yudhoyono’s administration sent at least 106 blasphemy cases to courts – and all

were found guilty.

In March 2006, Yudhoyono decreed a “religious harmony” regulation and set up government advisory bodies, skillfully named the Religious Harmony Forum, in every province and regency. The forum’s credo says, “The majority should protect the minorities and the minorities should respect the majority.” But it basically denies equal rights to Indonesian citizens. In many Muslim-majority areas, the credo allows Muslims to have effective veto power over the activities of religious minorities. More than 1,000 churches were closed down in that decade.

In 2014, Jokowi succeeded Yudhoyono. Many opinion makers and moderate Muslim leaders advised Jokowi to undo the discriminatory infrastructure he had inherited from Yudhoyono.

https://www.hrw.org/print/303512

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 100 of 105

Unfortunately, Jokowi declined to take those steps. He instead sought to foster better ties with moderate Muslim groups such as the nationwide Nahdlatul Ulama in the hope that it would strengthen his hand with the hardline Islamist groups. He clearly miscalculated.
The Ahok verdict endorsed an Islamist narrative of blasphemy. One of the five judges, reciting the Qur’an’s Al-Maidah 51 verse in Arabic, stressed that Muslims should not elect non-Muslim leaders. The court also adopted the Islamist’s position that non-Muslims should not comment on Qur’anic interpretations.
The verdict paints a frightening future for moderate Muslims and non-Muslims who believe in Indonesia’s pluralist society. Non-Muslims will think twice before making comments in public or on social media about diversity and pluralism. Beyond elected officials, public servants and executives of state-owned companies may be next in line.
Will it be OK to talk about opening a food vendor during the Ramadan fasting month? Will it be lawful to discuss mandatory wearing of the hijab? Non-Muslims might risk prison time just by venturing into these very ordinary subjects of Indonesian life.
If someone powerful and once popular like Ahok could be jailed for blasphemy, who is next?
Region / Country
• Asia • Indonesia
Topic
• Religious Freedom
More Reading

https://www.hrw.org/print/303512

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

Page 4 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 101 of 105

•
May 9, 2017 Dispatches
Indonesia Sends Jakarta Governor to Prison for Blasphemy
• May 14, 2014 Commentary
Undoing Yudhoyono’s Sectarian Legacy
Source URL: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-door-fear-and-religious-extremism
Links [1] https://www.hrw.org/view-mode/modal/303513 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/indonesia [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/islam [4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/14/undoing-yudhoyonos-sectarian-legacy [5] https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Courts%20Have%20Opened%20the%20Door%20to% 20Fear%20and%20Religious%20Extremism%20https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-openeddoor-fear-and-religious-extremism [6] https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-doorfear-and-religious-extremism [7] whatsapp://send?text=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Courts%20Have%20Opened%20the%20Door%20to%20Fear%20and% 20Religious%20Extremism%20-%20https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-door-fear-

https://www.hrw.org/print/303512

9/25/2017

Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

Page 5 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 102 of 105

and-religious-extremism [8] mailto:?subject=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Courts%20Have%20Opened%20the%20Door%20to%20Fear%20and% 20Religious%20Extremism&amp;body=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-door-fearand-religious-extremism [9] http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&amp;url=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courtshave-opened-door-fear-and-religious-extremism&amp;title=Indonesia%E2%80%99s%20Courts%20Have%20Opened% 20the%20Door%20to%20Fear%20and%20Religious%20Extremism [10] https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A//www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-door-fearand-religious-extremism [11] http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-door-fear-andreligious-extremism&amp;title=Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism [12] https://telegram.me/share/url?url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/10/indonesias-courts-have-opened-door-fear-andreligious-extremism&amp;text=Indonesia’s Courts Have Opened the Door to Fear and Religious Extremism

https://www.hrw.org/print/303512

9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 103 of 105
EXHIBIT M

Indonesia's Illiberal Turn

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 104 of 105

Home > Indonesia's Illiberal Turn
Friday, May 26, 2017 Indonesia's Illiberal Turn After the Ahok Case Sidney Jones
SIDNEY JONES is Director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict in Jakarta.
Indonesia is still reeling from a divisive election in April, in which hard-line Islamists forced the indictment on blasphemy charges, and eventual imprisonment, of the sitting governor of Jakarta, a Christian of Chinese descent named Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (better known as “Ahok”). The trial and conviction of Ahok have generated fears that the country’s social fabric is fraying, that sectarianism is on the rise, and that Indonesia’s democratic institutions are too weak to withstand a concerted assault from Islamists. The country once praised [1] by former U.S. President Barack Obama as a model of tolerance, pluralism, and democracy is now facing challenges to all three.
Despite such tensions, Indonesians remain overwhelmingly committed to democracy—some 70 percent believe it is the best system for their country [2]—and the country is a rock of stability in Southeast Asia. There is little danger of Indonesia turning into an Islamic state. The real worry is that unscrupulous politicians have realized that playing the religious card can win them elections. They will surely try to use it again in the race for the presidency in 2019.
SPEAK NO EVIL
The election in Jakarta, which took place over two rounds in February and April, initially pitted Ahok against two Muslim candidates. One, Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono, was the son of former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and a political neophyte who had just resigned from the military. The other, Anies Baswedan, was a noted educator backed by Prabowo Subianto. Prabowo, the scion of an influential political family, a retired army general with a controversial human rights record, and the son-in-law of Indonesia’s second president, Suharto, had lost the 2014 presidential election to an ally of Ahok, Joko Widodo, popularly known as “Jokowi.”
The trouble started in September 2016 when Ahok urged a group of civil servants to vote their conscience and not be fooled by anyone using a verse of the Koran to suggest that non-Muslims could not
Copyright © 2017 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. All rights reserved. To request permission to distribute or reprint this article, please fill out and submit a Permissions Request Form. If you plan to use this article in a coursepack or academic website, visit Copyright Clearance Center to clear permission.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/1120204

9/25/2017

Indonesia's Illiberal Turn

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-1 Filed 09/25/17 Page 105 of 105

Source URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/indonesia/2017-05-26/indonesias-illiberal-turn
Links [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110906579.html [2] http://www.wahidfoundation.org/index.php/news/detail/Most-Indonesians-Reject-Radicalism-WahidFoundation-Survey

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/1120204

9/25/2017

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM P. JOYCE, ESQ. I, William P. Joyce, under oath, depose and say as follows:
1. I am an adult resident of Massachusetts and make this affidavit based upon my own knowledge. This Affidavit is made in support of Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ Motions for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Stay of Removal. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Affidavit, and would be competent to testify thereto.
2. I am a retired Immigration Judge and former Legal Counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge within the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office of Immigration Review. I currently serve as Managing Director of Joyce and Associates, an immigration law firm

4852-6476-3984.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 6

located in Boston and Hyannis, Massachusetts. My practice includes representing individuals in their applications for political asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and other forms of relief from removal. 3. I presently serve as counsel to Petitioners/Plaintiffs Freddy and Poppy Sombah, who were participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender. 4. While I have only begun my representation of the Sombahs and several other Indonesian Christians recently, it is clear to me from the record that apparent cessation of Operation Indonesian Surrender has violated the due process rights of those Indonesian Christian nationals who had voluntarily participated and identified themselves to ICE. 5. ICE’s timeline for removal is more expedited than is reasonable for individuals like the Sombahs, who have no criminal record, pose no national security threat, have an adult son in the United States who was granted relief through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and are actively engaged in their faith community. The timeline is wholly inappropriate – and violative of due process rights – for individuals whom ICE is aware would have valid claims to reopen their immigration cases. 6. By way of this extreme expedition, the Sombahs received their Denial of Stay of Removal on September 18, 2017, and were ordered to report to the Manchester SubOffice on September 25, 2017, with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. 7. There is no possible way that a motion to reopen could reasonably be prepared and submitted on that timeline, and as such, their right to seek immigration relief to which they may be entitled will be extinguished if they are removed as planned. 8. Additionally, the ICE officer provided my client with a checklist which is highly specious, and has not been encountered by me previously despite my wide experience in

4852-6476-3984.1

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 6

immigration law. See Exhibit 1. It was provided less than a week before my client’s reporting date with ICE, and claims that certain materials – including materials to be obtained by foreign governments – must be obtained prior to his appointment at the risk of “further detention”, or “criminal prosecution”. I am aware of no authority by which failure to obtain a document from a foreign government within less than a week would subject a non-citizen to detention or “criminal prosecution”. I am concerned that failure to obtain these newly-demanded items on the checklist may serve as a pretext to detain my client at his appointment. 9. During my years in immigration law, I have overseen, adjudged, and represented many individuals in preparing and filing motions to reopen denied applications for political asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT based upon changed conditions in their home country. These motions are frequently filed with the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, an entity with the Executive Office for Immigration Review responsible for administrative appeals. 10. A motion to reopen based upon changed country conditions is extremely fact-dependent. This is because change is measured from the evidence present in the record on the date of the denial to the evidence presented with motion to reopen. Because these motions are generally adjudicated without hearings, it is extremely important to know and understand the evidence contained in the record so that persuasive and material evidence may be marshalled and proffered for the purposes of reopening. 11. The administrative record is not a public document. Obtaining administrative records for closed immigration cases is a cumbersome process. It typically requires the filing of a Freedom of Information Act Request with the Executive Office of Immigration Review. It can take months to obtain such documents.

4852-6476-3984.1

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 6
12. Additionally, other facts, such as eligibility for immediate relative status (such as marriage to a U.S. citizen or a U.S. citizen child’s attainment of the age of twenty-one), ineffective assistance of counsel, or extraordinary circumstances can also serve as bases for motions to reopen.
13. Motions to reopen are also resource-intensive and can cost many thousands of dollars to prepare.
14. The Indonesian Christian participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender, several of whom have now become clients of my firm, fear persecution in their home country on account of their religion. These fears are motivated by the conditions in Indonesia for members of the Christian faith. Reports on these conditions, and the increasing dangers facing Indonesian Christians, have been written by United States governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and experts since the early 2000s. It is my understanding that these conditions continue to worsen. An application based on such conditions would likely be meritoriously advanced if properly supported for an appropriate client.
15. By effectively blocking the participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender from their opportunity to submit such facts, ICE has violated their due process rights, and their removal should be stayed until such time as their claims can be properly adjudicated.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 24th day of September, 2017.
/s/ William P. Joyce William P. Joyce, Esq.

4852-6476-3984.1

4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/17 Page 6 of 6

INSTRUCTION SHEET TO DETAINEE REGARDING REQUIREMENT TO ASSIST IN REMOVAL

The following is a list of things you are required to complete within 30 days of receiving this form, in order comply with your obligation to assist in obtaining a travel document:
Mandatory requirements will be checked off by the ICE officer depending on the facts of each case. Failure to comply or provide sufficient evidence of your inability to comply, may result in the extension of the removal period and subject you to further detention. In addition, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. If you need assistance in complying with any of the requirements, please contact a Deportation Officer.

IA Submit passports (current and expired) to ICE. If you have a copy of your passport, you are to submit it.
E Apply for a travel document/passport from your embassy or consulate, or directly from your government in your native country, or any other embassy or consulate of your native country in another country.
IZ Comply with all instructions from all embassies or consulates requiring completion of documentation for issuance of a travel document.
E Submit to ICE birth certificates, national identification cards, and any other document issued by a foreign government indicating your citizenship, nationality, place of birth, and place of residence prior to entering the United States.
El Provide names and addresses of family and friends residing in the United States and request that they contact your embassy or consulate in the United States, in order to facilitate the issuance of a travel document.
IN Provide names and addresses of family and friends residing in your country of citizenship and request family and friends residing abroad contact your government in reference to issuing a travel document.
You are required to take measures to request reinstatement of your previous nationality, register as required, or take any other action that will ensure the issuance of a travel document and your removal from the United States.
El Provide ICE with written copies of requests to embassies or consulates requesting issuance of a travel document.
El Provide ICE with written copies of responses from embassies or consulates regarding your requests.
KI Solicit peunission from another country, which may be able to accept you, to enter that country to affect your removal from the United States.
E Provide your true and correct name and date of birth and any other identities you have ever used.
0 Other:

Alien's Signature

Ser

hone..'-

Officer's Name

A Number

on

at

Date

Location

To be served with 1-229 (a) no later than 30 days after the final order

(Rev. 04/18/12)

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. _____

AFFIDAVIT OF REV. SANDRA PONTOH I, Rev. Sandra Pontoh, under oath, depose and say as follows: 1. I am an adult resident of New Hampshire and make this affidavit based upon my own knowledge. This Affidavit is made in support of Petitioners’ Motions for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Stay of Removal. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this Affidavit, and would be competent to testify thereto. 2. I am currently the pastor at Maranatha Indonesian United Church of Christ in Madbury, New Hampshire, and am a leader among the Indonesian Christian Community in Southern New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 3. Because of the extreme persecution of Christians in Indonesia in the late 1990s, many of my congregants are, in effect, religious refugees from Indonesia; many of my
4813-2065-8512

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 4
congregants come from Jakarta, one of the most dangerous areas for Christians in Indonesia. In Jakarta in the 1990s, many churches were burned and bombed, and many congregants arrived in the United States on visas that they overstayed in part because of their abject fear of the persecution, torture, or death in Indonesia due to their Christian faith, and have since had to live in an undocumented status since that time. 4. Members of my congregation were very fearful because of their undocumented status, especially because it impeded their ability to participate fully in their communities and their abilities to pursue education or work. Nevertheless, they continued to live out their Christian faith to the best of their ability, and we remain a tight-knit community. 5. In 2009 and 2010, I was approached by various government officials from, among other offices, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, about potential options to help my congregants and fellow Indonesian Christians “come out of the shadows” by disclosing their identity to ICE. As explained to me by, among others, Manchester ICE Supervisor Timothy Stevens, a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender” would allow members of my community without criminal records who had already been issued an order of removal to obtain a stay of deportation and employment authorization in exchange for their agreement to identify themselves and to be monitored by ICE. I understand this to be referred to as an Order of Supervision. At that time I was assured by ICE that they wanted to help my congregants. 6. In 2010 I advertised this program to my congregation. Many were fearful that it was a “trap” by immigration officials, but I relayed to them the message that ICE expressed to me – that they wanted to help the community – and eventually 100 individuals agreed to come forward.

4813-2065-8512.3

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 4
7. Those individuals were approved for the program, and generally complied with their obligations to be monitored at the ICE Office at Manchester, New Hampshire, at regular intervals. My congregants were able to live productively under that program. We believed that our community was building a good relationship with ICE by demonstrating our responsible compliance with the terms of the program.
8. In 2011, their stays of removal were generally approved, and several additional individuals applied and were accepted into the program.
9. In early 2012, I unfortunately came to realize that fears about the program were not unfounded, because, at that time, community members were informed that unless they had U.S. citizen children, U.S. citizen spouses, or health issues, they would be deported.
10. In the first round of deportations, approximately 37 individuals were sent back to Indonesia. This was devastating to my community, and to those individuals who are now living in fear in Indonesia. That change was made without warning, and at the time we were assured that those with U.S. citizen children or spouses would not be deported.
11. Since that time, 69 individuals remain in the program and have continued to live without incident, abiding by the terms of the Orders of Supervision.
12. Now, on June 21, 2017, we requested a meeting with ICE Assistant Field Office Director Todd Thurlow and were advised that all of those 69 remaining community members, all of whom, to my knowledge, have U.S. citizen children, were very likely to be deported, with the exception of any who had impending surgeries or medical procedures. This was devastating, not only because of the fear that our congregants have, but also because they had not incurred the substantial expense (in the thousands of dollars) to pursue further immigration relief while they were participating in the program

4813-2065-8512.3

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 4-3 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, HERU KURNIAWAN, DEETJE PATTY, ROY ANTOUW, DEBBY WALANDOW, ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO, VIRAKE BUDIHARDJO, MICHAEL EMAN, HESTI RIMPER, GREACE MAMBO, SONNY MAMBO, EDDY PANJAITAN, LINARIA SINAGA, CHRISTIAN PENTURY, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS

FIRST AMENDED CLASS PETITION FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MANDAMUS AND CLASS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION 1. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are Indonesian nationals who, having resided in the United
States peaceably for decades, now face imminent removal to Indonesia where they face the very
real prospect of persecution, torture, or death due to their Christian faith. Removals for these
individuals, who voluntarily identified themselves to United States Immigration and Customs

4849-0473-7873.2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 2 of 33

Enforcement (“ICE”) as part of its “Operation Indonesian Surrender” program, are scheduled to occur within the next four weeks (and, for Petitioners Freddy Sombah and Poppy Sombah, this Wednesday, September 27, 2017). Petitioners/Plaintiffs pray that this Court stay these removals because ICE has denied them the due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by attempting to remove them on a timeframe that prevents them from exercising their right to seek the immigration relief to which they are entitled through motions to reopen their immigration cases. Accordingly, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals for the purpose of ensuring that everyone in the class is afforded their Fifth Amendment due process protections.

2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class they seek to represent had been permitted to remain in the United States despite immigration infractions, such as visa overstays, through “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” a program established in roughly 20092010, that specifically encouraged Indonesian Christian community members who were subject to final orders of removal to “come out of the shadows,” report to ICE, and voluntarily submit to Orders of Supervision. Petitioners/Plaintiffs accepted that invitation. They are part of roughly 70 individuals remaining in the program, who were living peaceably in their communities pursuant to those Orders of Supervision. That all changed this June, when the Boston ICE Field Office, suddenly began issuing Denials of Stay of Removal and/or Notices of Revocation of Release.

3. Upon information and belief, Petitioners/Plaintiffs now face imminent removal to

Indonesia, a country which they left years ago, and where even the U.S. State Department

restricts its own personnel from traveling freely. U.S. Department of State, International Travel

Country

Reports

(April

17,

2017),

available

at

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html.

2
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 3 of 33
4. U.S. law prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where they would face a likelihood of persecution or torture. Yet despite the clear danger that many of these individuals face in Indonesia due to their Christian faith, ICE is attempting to deport them based on outstanding removal orders that did not take account of intervening changed circumstances which should entitle them to protection. For example, Christians are widely recognized as targets of brutal persecution in Indonesia. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom included Indonesia in its 2017 list of countries of particular concern as a “Tier 2” country, a group of countries which, while less repressive than North Korea, includes Iraq, a nation to which deportations of Christians has been halted by another federal court. Hamama v Adducci, No. 17-cv-011910, 2017 WL 2684477 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2017); U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Indonesia,” 2017 Annual Report, available at http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Indonesia.2017.pdf.
5. The Pew Research Center rated Indonesia high in both government restrictions and social hostilities in its 2017 Report on global religious restrictions. “Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend,” Pew Research Center (Apr. 11, 2017), available at http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-risemodestly-in-2015-reversing-downward-trend/.
6. Despite these dangers Petitioners/Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, whose orders of removal were entered years ago, are facing immediate deportation to Indonesia without any chance to explain the present status of the dangers they would currently face.
7. Petitioners/Plaintiffs cannot be removed to Indonesia without being afforded a process to determine whether, based on current conditions and circumstances, the danger they
3
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 4 of 33
would face entitles them to protection from removal. Specifically, Petitioners/Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue an order preventing their removal to Indonesia until they are provided with their due process right to a determination of their entitlement to protection in light of changed country conditions or other entitlement to relief.
8. Finally, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the similarly situated members of the putative class, challenge any actual or anticipated detention, which bears no reasonable relationship to any legitimate purpose. Because they cannot be lawfully removed until they have had an opportunity to renew their requests for protection, their detention is not necessary to effectuate their imminent removal. Petitioners/Plaintiffs ask this Court to order their immediate release, absent an individualized determination that they pose a danger or flight risk that requires their detention.
9. Because Petitioners/Plaintiffs are a subset of a larger community impacted by ICE’s sudden and arbitrary change in policy, they seek to obtain relief for themselves and for a class of similarly situated individuals—Christian Indonesians that voluntarily participated in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” who now find themselves subject to Notices of Revocation of Relief or Denials of Stays issued by the Boston Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, of U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, that will be executed within weeks.
JURISDICTION
10. This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; the regulations implementing the INA’s asylum provisions; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
4
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 5 of 33
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
11. This Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., and Art. I § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause). This Court may also exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus statute), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedures Act); Art. III of the United States Constitution; Amendment V to the United States Constitution; and the common law. This Court may grant the relief requested herein pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
12. This Court has recently held that an alien’s status as subject to an Order of Supervision is in “custody” for purposes of habeas corpus jurisdiction. Ali v. Napolitano, Civ. No. 12-cv-11384-FDS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104964, *10-13 (July 26, 2013) (Saylor, J.); see also generally Mendonca v. INS, 52 F. Supp. 2d 155, 159 (D. Mass.), aff’d, 201 F.3d 427 (1st Cir 1999) (holding that “custody” includes persons subject to a final order even if they are not in physical custody) (Saris, J.).
13. This action is not barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (the REAL ID Act of 2005) because this Court may review a question that is independent of the removal process or which cannot be addressed through the available administrative process. See generally Aguilar v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, 510 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2007); Flores-Powell v. Chadbourne, 677 F. Supp. 2d 455, 468 (D. Mass. 2010) (finding that the court may review whether detention violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment). The present action does not challenge the underlying orders of
5
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 6 of 33
removal. Rather, it seeks to challenge a condition of Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ custody, specifically, ICE’s abrupt change in policy regarding participants in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” and the unfairly compressed timetable of the issuance of the Denials of Stays and/or Notices of Revocation of Release, which are documents attendant to their Orders of Supervision that are preventing Petitioners/Plaintiffs from exercising their due process rights to challenge their final orders of removal in the proper forum: the Immigration Court.
VENUE
14. Venue lies in the District of Massachusetts, the judicial district in which the Boston ICE Field Office Director is located. Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000). The Boston ICE Field Office Director issued the Denials of Stay of Removal, and the Orders of Supervision were issued under that Field Office’s supervision.
PARTIES
15. Petitioner/Plaintiff LIA DEVITRI is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since July 2010. She is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 10, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff AGUS SETIAWAN; they have four U.S. citizen children, one of whom suffers from cerebral palsy.
16. Petitioner/Plaintiff EVA GRASJE is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a
6
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 7 of 33
final order of removal since 2007. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, she received a Denial of Stay on February 28, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff MELDY LUMANGKUN; they have one non-U.S. citizen child and two U.S. citizen children, one of whom is hearing impaired. She is a deacon in the Rochester Indonesian Seventh Day Adventist Church.
17. Petitioner/Plaintiff SYANE KALOH is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2005. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, she received a Denial of Stay on September 5, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 and to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff JOHN LONDA; they have one non-U.S. citizen child who was granted relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA), and one U.S. citizen child, age 14.
18. Petitioner/Plaintiff JOHN LONDA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2007. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, he received a Denial of Stay on September 5, 2017, signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 with a plane
7
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 8 of 33
ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff SYANE KALOH; they have one non-U.S. citizen child who was granted relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA), and one U.S. citizen child, age 14.
19. Petitioner/Plaintiff MELDY LUMANGKUN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2007. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, he received a Denial of Stay on February 28, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff EVA GRASJE; they have one non-U.S. citizen child and two U.S. citizen children, one of whom is hearing impaired. He is an elder in the Rochester Indonesian Seventh Day Adventist Church.
20. Petitioner/Plaintiff MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident, when, without any explanation, during the week of September 18, 2017, he received a Denial of Stay signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner Petitioner/Plaintiff MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS; they have three U.S. citizen children, one of whom, age 15, is autistic and requires constant supervision and special educational programs.
8
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 9 of 33
21. Petitioner/Plaintiff MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She has been living under an Order of Supervision without incident. She imminently expects to receive a Denial of Stay signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office; she has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner Petitioner/Plaintiff MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS; they have three U.S. citizen children, one of whom, age 15, is autistic and requires constant supervision and special educational programs.
22. Petitioner/Plaintiff TERRY ROMBOT is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision, but was issued a Notice of Revocation of Release on August 1, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office. He is presently in immigration custody in Plymouth County jail, and is the subject of related case in this District, Rombot v. Cronen, et al., No. 17-cv-11577-PBS.
23. Petitioner/Plaintiff AGUS SETIAWAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under the Order of Supervision without incident since July 2010. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 10, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff LIA DEVITRI; they have four U.S. citizen children, one of whom suffers from cerebral palsy.
9
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 10 of 33
24. Petitioner/Plaintiff FREDDY SOMBAH is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, he received a Denial of Stay of Removal on September 18, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff POPPY SOMBAH; their son was granted relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). He suffers from various serious medical conditions.
25. Petitioner/Plaintiff POPPY SOMBAH is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, she received a Denial of Stay of Removal on September 18, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff FREDDY SOMBAH; their son was granted relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). She suffers from serious medical conditions.
26. Petitioner/Plaintiff HERU KURNIAWAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 2010. On August 1, 2017, he was ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. He is the husband of
10
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 11 of 33
Petitioner/Plaintiff DEETJE PATTY; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 34. Petitioner/Plaintiff KURNIAWAN may be eligible for permanent residence based upon his immediate relative relationship with his daughter, and he has applied for such relief. This status has permitted Petitioner/Plaintiff KURNIAWAN to file a motion to reopen his final order of removal and may permit him to seek permanent residence, but no administrative stay of removal has been granted to him.
27. Petitioner/Plaintiff DEETJE PATTY is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 2010. On August 1, 2017, she was ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff HERU KURNIAWAN; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 34. Petitioner/Plaintiff PATTY may be eligible for permanent residence based upon her immediate relative relationship with her daughter and she has applied for such relief. This status has permitted Petitioner/Plaintiff PATTY to file a motion to reopen her final order of removal and may permit her to seek permanent residence, but no administrative stay of removal has been granted to her.
28. Petitioner/Plaintiff ROY ANTOUW is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 7, 2017. He is
11
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 12 of 33
the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff DEBBY WALANDOW; they have a U.S. citizen son, age 15, and daughter who will turn 21 years old on December 31, 2017. Upon his elder daughter’s birthday, Petitioner/Plaintiff ANTOUW may be eligible for permanent residence based upon his immediate relative relationship with his daughter. Immediate relative classification would permit Petitioner/Plaintiff ANTOUW to file a motion to reopen his final order of removal and seek permanent residence.
29. Petitioner/Plaintiff DEBBY WALANDOW is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. She is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and although she has been ordered to report to ICE on October 16, 2017, she has purchased a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia with her husband, Petitioner/Plaintiff ROY ANTOUW, on October 7, 2017. Plaintiffs/Petitioners WALANDOW and ANTOUW have a U.S. citizen son, age 15, and daughter who will turn 21 years old on December 31, 2017. Upon her elder daughter’s birthday Petitioner/Plaintiff WALANDOW may be eligible for permanent residence based upon her immediate relative relationship with her stepdaughter. Immediate relative classification would permit Petitioner/Plaintiff WALANDOW to file a motion to reopen her final order of removal and seek permanent residence.
30. Petitioner/Plaintiff ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to
12
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 13 of 33
Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 3, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 4, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff VIRAKE BANTURINO; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 14.
31. Petitioner/Plaintiff VIRAKE BUDIHARDJO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. She is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 3, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 4, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 14.
32. Petitioner/Plaintiff MICHAEL EMAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since May 20, 2010. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 4, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 5, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff HESTI RIMPER; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 and 14.
33. Petitioner/Plaintiff HESTI RIMPER is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since May 20, 2010.
13
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 14 of 33
She is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff MICHAEL EMAN; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 and 14.
34. Petitioner/Plaintiff GREACE MAMBO (a/k/a/ GREACE RAWUNG) is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. She is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 4, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 5, 2017. She is the ex-wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff SONNY MAMBO. She has three U.S. citizen children, ages 4, 12, and 15, who have lived their entire lives in the United States, speak English, and barely understand Indonesian language or culture. Petitioner/Plaintiff MAMBO also anticipates that she will be appointed legal guardian of her U.S. citizen niece on October 17, 2017.
35. Petitioner/Plaintiff SONNY MAMBO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 4, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 5, 2017. He is the ex-husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff GREACE MAMBO. He has three U.S. citizen children,
14
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 15 of 33
ages 4, 12, and 15, who have lived their entire lives in the United States, speak English, and barely understand Indonesian language or culture.
36. Petitioner/Plaintiff EDDY PANJAITAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since November 3, 2013. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 7, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff LINARIA SINAGA; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 7 and 10.
37. Petitioner/Plaintiff LINARIA SINAGA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since November 3, 2013. She is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 7, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff EDDY PANJAITAN; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 7 and 10.
38. Petitioner/Plaintiff CHRISTIAN PENTURY is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 31, 2010. He is subject to an Order of Supervision signed by the predecessor to Respondent/Defendant Cronen from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report
15
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 16 of 33
to ICE on October 10, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 11, 2017. Petitioner/Plaintiff PENTURY is the caretaker of his elderly mother, an Indonesian Christian currently in poor health who was granted withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge on the basis that she was more likely than not to be harmed on account of her religion if returned to Indonesia.
39. Respondent/Defendant CHRIS M. CRONEN is the Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is sued in his official capacity. The Field Office Director has responsibility for and authority over the detention and removal of noncitizens within the Boston Region, and is their custodian, for purposes of habeas corpus. Respondent/Defendant Cronen’s office is in Burlington, Massachusetts.
40. Respondent/Defendant TIMOTHY STEVENS is Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is sued in his official capacity. The Manchester Sub-Office, which reports to Respondent/Defendant Cronen, has responsibility for the detention and removal of certain noncitizens and is the sub-office of the Boston Region to which many of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have been ordered to report.
41. Respondent/Defendant ELAINE C. DUKE is the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and is sued in her official capacity. Respondent/Defendant Cronen reports to Acting Secretary Duke, who therefore has supervisory responsibility for and authority over the detention and removal of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
16
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 17 of 33
LEGAL BACKGROUND
42. Consistent with U.S. obligations under the CAT, the INA prohibits the U.S. government from removing a noncitizen to a country where he or she is more likely than not to face persecution or torture.
43. Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), “Restriction on Removal to a country where alien’s life or freedom would be threatened,” codifies the nonrefoulement obligation of the Refugee Act. The provision is a mandatory prohibition on removing noncitizens to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Apart from certain specified exceptions, any individual who can demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted on one of the five protected grounds is entitled to this statutorily mandated protection. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) (holding that alien is entitled to relief from deportation if he is more likely than not to face persecution on one of the specified grounds following his deportation).
44. The other prohibition on removal tracks the CAT’s prohibition on removal of noncitizens to countries where they would face torture. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-18 (implementing the CAT’s provisions with regard to withholding of removal); FARRA, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G., Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (Oct. 21, 1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231); U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 1, P 1, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
17
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 18 of 33
45. Under the CAT, an individual may not be removed if “it is more likely than not that [the individual] would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); torture may be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). The regulations provide for both withholding of removal under CAT and “deferral of removal.” Whereas withholding of removal is subject to the same exceptions as apply to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), deferral of removal contains no exceptions for people with “particularly serious crimes.” Compare 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(d)(3) with 8 C.F.R. § 208.17.
46. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are also potentially eligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief from persecution that is available to noncitizens who can demonstrate that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). “[A]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States… irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). To prevail on an asylum claim, the applicant must establish that there is at least a 10% chance that he or she will be persecuted on account of one of these enumerated grounds. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 439-40 (1987).
47. Noncitizens who have been ordered removed have the statutory right to file motions to reopen their cases, which are governed by certain time and numerical requirements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7). The statute grants special solicitude for noncitizens who are seeking relief from persecution. If the noncitizen is seeking asylum, withholding, or protection under CAT based “on changed country conditions arising in the . . . country to which removal has been
18
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 19 of 33
ordered,” the statute permits the noncitizen to file a motion to reopen at any time. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
48. The exception to the numerical and time limits provides a safety valve for bona fide refugees who would otherwise be deported from the United States in violation of U.S. international treaty obligations of nonrefoulement. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Judicial review of a motion to reopen serves as a ‘safety valve’ in the asylum process. . . . Such oversight ‘ensure[s] that the BIA lives by its rules and at least considers new information’ bearing on applicants’ need for and right to relief.”) (citing Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 948 (6th Cir. 2004)).
49. In addition, the Due Process Clause and the INA grant Petitioners/Plaintiffs the right to counsel to challenge their removal, and to a fair proceeding before they are removed from the country. 8 U.S.C. § 1362; Leslie v. Attorney General, 611 F.3d 171, 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that the Fifth Amendment and immigration statute affords a noncitizen right to counsel of her own choice); Amadou v. INS, 226 F.3d 724, 726-27 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that noncitizens have “due process right to a full and fair hearing”).
FACTS
ICE Induced Indonesian Christians with Final Removal Orders to Come Forward, But Then Abruptly Moved to Deport Them Without Sufficient Notice.
50. In 2009 and 2010, ICE in Boston began a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender” to induce Christian Indonesian nationals who were residing under a final order of removal to identify themselves to ICE in exchange for the ability to remain in the United States under an Order of Supervision. See “Jeanne Shaheen: Trump should let NH’s Indonesian Community Stay,” Manchester Union Leader (Sept. 10, 2017) (“In 2009, working with these
19
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 20 of 33
families and members of their church community, my office helped negotiate an agreement with ICE to allow them to remain in New Hampshire and obtain work permits in exchange for a pledge to regularly touch base with ICE.”), available at http://www.unionleader.com/AnotherView-Jeanne-Shaheen-Trump-should-let-NHs-Indonesian-community-stay-09112017.
51. As described by an ICE public affairs official, this was an “humanitarian effort” involving Indonesian churches. See “ICE Seeks Surrender of Illegal Immigrants,” Foster’s Daily Democrat (Sept. 10, 2010) (“‘The whole purpose is bringing folks out of the shadows and saying listen, we’ll work with you. They’re hiding in fear and we don’t want that - no one wants that.’”), available at http://www.fosters.com/article/20100901/GJNEWS_01/709019921. ICE worked with pastors in the Indonesian Christian churches to help identify “upstanding” members of the community to participate in this program. Id. Individuals with criminal records were not eligible for the program. Id.
52. Upon information and belief, approximately 100 Christian Indonesian individuals in New England participated in the program, and received Orders of Supervision.
53. Upon information and belief, individuals within this program relied on these Orders of Supervision, generally abided by the conditions imposed by the Orders, and continued to be productive members of their respective communities. In 2012, the program was further limited to individuals with U.S. citizen children and/or spouses. Approximately 70 individuals remain in the Boston region pursuant to that Program.
54. Upon information and belief, in or about June 2017, ICE advised the community that it would likely be issuing Denials of Stays of Removal and/or Notices of Revocation of Release to Indonesian Christians who were participants in the program. The change in policy
20
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 21 of 33
came as a shock to the community. Until then, Indonesians with final orders had been living at
large, for years, with few restrictions apart from regular reporting requirements. Law abiding
individuals, who have been living in the United States for years—in most cases, for nearly two
decades—and who have been fully compliant with their conditions of supervision, and all of
whom, upon information and belief, have U.S. citizen children or spouses, suddenly found
themselves facing orders to obtain tickets back to Indonesia, a country where they will surely
face severe persecution. Further, upon information and belief, on August 1, 2017 at a common
check-in date for many participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender, at the ICE Sub-Office in
Manchester, roughly two dozen participants were ordered by ICE Officers to return roughly 30-
45 days later with plane tickets to Indonesia. There was no warning about this change, and no
reasonable opportunity for Petitioner/Plaintiffs to research and understand their rights and seek
appropriate relief in an appropriate forum.
55. Persecution of Christian minorities in Indonesia has been well documented, as the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recognized even since the beginning of Operation
Indonesian Surrender when it has engaged in reviewing the type of fact-specific inquiry that
Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek to present:
Panoto is a Christian from Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. According to the IJ’s decision, Panoto testified that she experienced persecution as an Indonesian Christian and attributed the following incidents to her religious identity. On Christmas Eve in 2000, a member of Panoto’s congregation found a black box outside their church. Police officers determined that the item was a bomb and removed it before it could detonate. Panoto testified that local authorities did not investigate the event further. Approximately six months later, in June 2001, Panoto was riding on a ferry boat when it was hijacked by Muslim extremists. Once aboard, the hijackers shouted for the Christian passengers to come forward. Panoto witnessed the militants slit an elderly Christian woman’s throat, killing her. One extremist then yanked Panoto by the hair and slapped her, commanding that she state her faith. Panoto did not reply, and just as he was about to attack her, another hijacker called him away.
21
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 22 of 33
Panoto v. Holder, 770 F.3d 43, 45 (2014) (granting petition for review and vacating order of removal).
Individuals With Old Removal Orders May Have Multiple Bases for Reopening their Cases, Including Changed Country Conditions in Indonesia That Put Them at Risk of Persecution or Torture if Removed.
56. Each of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and members of the putative class may have multiple bases for reopening their removal cases, including recent attainment of eligibility for immediate relative status (such as marriage to a U.S. citizen or a U.S. citizen child’s attainment of the age of the twenty-one), ineffective assistance of counsel, extraordinary circumstances, or changed country conditions in Indonesia, each of which must be carefully adjudicated by an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
57. For example, with respect to country conditions, many of the Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ removal orders predate the significant deterioration in Indonesia and the increasing danger for Christian that has come in part from the rise of the so-called “Islamic State” in Indonesia, as illustrated by an attack in 2016 in Jakarta, the area of Indonesia from which many of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs escaped to come to the U.S.. As reported by the U.S. Department of State: “on January 14, 2016, terrorists using guns and explosives attacked near the Sarinah Plaza in Central Jakarta, killing four civilians, including a foreigner, and injuring 17 others.” Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Information: Indonesia (Apr. 17, 2017), available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/indonesia.html; see also Jonathan Egmonth, “Islamist Intolerance Poses a Growing Threat to Indonesia’s Minorities, TIME (Apr. 20, 2016), available at http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslimislamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-hardliners/.
22
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 23 of 33
58. At least one other federal district court, facing analogous challenge by a discrete group of noncitizens who were from a country whose level of persecution of Christians had recently increased, in part due to the rise of the Islamic State, permitted a stay of removal to accommodate the filing of motions to reopen. Hamama v. Adducci, No. 17-cv-11901, 2017 WL 2806144 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2017) (issuing preliminary injunction to stay the removal of Christians to Iraq).
Severe Obstacles to Due Process Are Created by ICE’s Immediate Removal Timeline.
59. ICE’s issuances of Notice of Revocation of Release and/or Denials of Stays has severely impeded Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their due process rights, due to the extraordinarily short time for removal that would preclude the preparation of motions to reopen.
60. Filing motions to reopen requires substantial time and resources. Most take several months and cost several thousand dollars. This process will be even more difficult for those who lack assistance of counsel and/or the means to retain counsel. Those who have retained counsel still face additional hurdles in filing motions to reopen. Attorneys will need time to visit and interview clients, review administrative records and applications for relief from removal previously adjudicated, marshal evidence, and draft pleadings and related papers, all of which is impossible within the compressed timeframe permitted for removal that ICE has set – with deportations set to begin as early as this Wednesday.
61. With respect to motions to be filed for Petitioners/Plaintiffs seeking to reopen their previously-denied applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and/or CAT, the immediate removal timeline infringes upon due process. The First Circuit has stated that, for the purposes of such motions “evidence of changed circumstances must demonstrate an
23
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 24 of 33
intensification or deterioration of [his] country[‘s] conditions, not their mere continuation.” Marsadu v. Holder, 748 F.3d 55, 58 (1st Cir. 2014). To assess the deterioration of country conditions and, correspondingly, whether the Petitioners/Plaintiffs now has a well-founded fear of religious persecution, the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals will compare evidence presented at the initial adjudication with newly proffered evidence. Id. at 5859.1 On the one hand, without an opportunity to review the administrative record with their attorneys and adequately prepare pleadings in consideration of this exacting legal standard, the motions to reopen will invariably be denied. On the other hand, failure to file for relief within the immediate removal timeline could result in refoulement. Such a choice clearly does not satisfy the minimum procedural safeguards guaranteed by due process.
62. In considering a similar group of noncitizens subjected to removal on a compressed timetable impinging on their due process rights, another federal court permitted a stay of removal. Hamama v. Adducci, No. 17-cv-11901, 2017 WL 2806144 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2017).
1 A “well-founded fear of persecution” is demonstrated by evidence establishing a “reasonable likelihood” that the Petitioner/Plaintiff will face persecution, “provided that his fears are subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. Marsadu, 748 F.3d at 58 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) ).
To prove that his fears are objectively reasonable, a petitioner typically must either: (a) produce credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a fear of individualized persecution in the future, or (b) he must establish that there is a pattern or practice in his country of nationality of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the petitioner on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
24
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 25 of 33
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
63. Petitioners/Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.
64. Plaintiffs/Petitioners bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and as a representative habeas class action for similarly situated persons pursuant to a procedure analogous to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). See Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 889-91 (9th Cir 2003) (holding that the district court did not exceed its habeas jurisdiction in certifying a nationwide habeas class), withdrawn and amended on other grounds on reh’g, Ali v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Geraghty v. U.S. Parole Commission, 429 F. Supp. 737, 740 (M.D. Pa. 1977).
65. In addition to the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs, there are numerous other individuals living within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office who were lured into “Operation Indonesian Surrender” under humanitarian pretenses, who are now subject to Orders of Supervision, and whose rights under the United States Constitution and applicable international treaties are infringed by ICE’s immediate removal timeline. Each of these similarly situated individuals is in “custody,” faces imminent removal from the United States, and, as a result, is effectively being deprived of the opportunity to prepare motions to reopen and underlying applications prior to removal. Due process and statutory and treaty protections afforded to persons fearing religious persecution or torture in their home countries compels sufficient time to file. Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the putative class they seek to represent be afforded the opportunity to take such steps and have their arguments heard by an Immigration Court before the government can send them to a country that is now foreign and hostile to them.
25
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 26 of 33
66. Each of these similarly situated individuals is entitled to bring a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, to prohibit the Respondents’/Defendants’ attempts to foreclose their access to counsel and ability to prepare filings necessary to seek relief from removal due to changed country conditions in Indonesia, changed familiar status, or any other valid basis for relief.
67. These similarly situated individuals satisfy the numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Reid v. Donelan, 297 F.R.D. 185, 188 (D. Mass.), enforcement granted, 64 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D. Mass. 2014); Gordon v. Johnson, 300 F.R.D. 28, 30 (D. Mass. 2014); see generally U.S. ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974) (applying class certification concepts to a motion for class certification filed by a petitioner seeking habeas relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated). The proposed class is defined under Rule 23(b)(2) as:
All Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender.” The proposed class falls within the defined categories of Rule 23(b)(2) in that the United States “has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.” Reid, 297 F.R.D. at 192-93 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2)) (“[C]ivil rights actions like this one, where a party charges that another has engaged in unlawful behavior towards a defined group, are ‘prime examples’ of Rule 23(b)(2) classes”).
68. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 70 Indonesian Christian individuals remaining in the Operation Indonesian Surrender program under Orders of Supervisions who are could be part of the proposed class. See George v. Nat’l Water Main
26
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 27 of 33
Cleaning Co., 286 F.R.D. 168, 173 (D. Mass. 2012) (recognizing that forty or more persons in a class ordinarily satisfies the numerosity requirement). The total number of class members and the varied terms of their Orders of Supervision and the manner and in which the United States will effect their removal from the United States is such that joinder of the claims of all class members would be impracticable.
69. Joinder is also impracticable because some members of the class have limited financial means to bring an individual action for the relief requested herein and some class members may be dissuaded from bringing suit individually for fear of retaliation by the government for exercising their rights. This class action is only the first legal step for the putative class members, designed merely to afford them the opportunity to take further legal steps, individually, to protect their individual rights. Judicial economy and the need to expeditiously resolve the claims raised herein also counsel in favor of class treatment.
70. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same course of events—Boston ICE’s “Operation Indonesian Surrender” and its sudden decision to deport the participants of that program—and are based on the same legal arguments.
71. Petitioners/Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no relevant conflicts of interest with other members of the proposed class, nor are any conflicts likely to arise, and Petitioners/Plaintiffs have the ability and incentive to prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in class action and immigration law.
27
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 28 of 33
72. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to the members of the proposed class. These common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the proposed class can be removed without being provided an opportunity to demonstrate that they qualify for relief from persecution or torture based on, inter alia, changed country conditions in Indonesia;
b. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1158, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture impose a mandatory obligation to consider Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ and class members’ individualized requests for relief from persecution or torture; and
c. Whether Respondent violated Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ and class members’ constitutional, statutory, and regulatory right to due process and a fair removal hearing by arbitrarily orchestrating a compressed process for removal that deprives them of their rights to reopen their individual immigration cases by giving them no time to make appropriate filings in Immigration Court.
73. Finally, the proposed class is ascertainable because the class is sufficiently definite and provable. The class consists of Christian Indonesian nationals living in New England that participated in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” who are now subject to a final order of removal. Respondent should have records sufficient to identify all persons in the class.
28
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 29 of 33
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT - PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL TO COUNTRY WHERE INDIVIDUAL WOULD FACE PERSECUTION OR TORTURE
74. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
75. Pursuant to the INA, and to ensure compliance with international treaties for which it is a signatory, the U.S. government is prohibited from removing noncitizens to countries where they are more likely than not to face persecution or torture.
76. The prohibition on removal is mandatory for anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations. In addition, where country conditions change after an individual has been ordered removed, the INA specifically provides for motions to reopen a removal order in order to renew one’s claims for protection in light of new facts.
77. Petitioners/Plaintiffs, who are facing removal to Indonesia based on stale removal orders, face persecution and/or torture if removed to that country in light of changed circumstances since their cases were first considered. Removing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs without giving them a fair opportunity to raise these issues in Immigration Court violates the INA and international treaties to which the United States is a signatory.
COUNT TWO FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DENIAL OF RIGHT TO REOPEN REMOVAL ORDERS ON ACCOUNT OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ASYLUM/WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL/CAT PROTECTION 78. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
29
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 30 of 33
79. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of life or liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
80. The United States government is obligated by federal and international law, to hear the claims of noncitizens, regardless of their status, who have a credible fear of persecution or torture emanating from their home country before they are removed from the United States to that country.
81. Because the danger to the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs and others similarly situated is based on changed country circumstances in Indonesia, they have not received their core procedural entitlement-they have not had an opportunity to have their claims heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, that is, with respect to current conditions, not the conditions that existed at the time their removal order was first issued. Removing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs without giving them this opportunity violates due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT THREE - UNLAWFUL DETENTION
82. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
83. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ detention violates due process unless it bears a reasonable relationship to the government’s purposes - effectuating removal and protecting against danger.
84. The government’s detention of Petitioners/Plaintiffs bears no reasonable relationship to either purpose. At a minimum, Petitioners/Plaintiffs must be afforded individualized determinations to assess whether their continued detention is justified.
30
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 31 of 33
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
B. Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction temporarily staying Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ removal, and that of all putative class members, until this action is decided;
C. Certify a class defined as “all Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender”;
D. Name Petitioners/Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class; and appoint Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel;
E. Declare that Respondents/Defendants have violated the rights of the class;
F. Order Respondents/Defendants to provide Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of all class members and copies of their A files (immigration files) and program descriptions, criteria, or policy memoranda relating to “Operation Indonesian Surrender”;
G. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members to Indonesia without first providing them with sufficient opportunity to establish that, in light of current conditions and the likelihood that they would suffer persecution or torture if removed to Indonesia, they are entitled to protection against such removal, and enter a writ of mandamus for that same purpose;
H. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members to Indonesia until they have been given sufficient time to enable them to file motions to reopen their removal orders and seek stays of removal from the immigration court; specifically, each member of the petitioner class should be given four months to file their motions to reopen, starting when the government provides a copy of the individual’s A-file and the Record of Proceedings to the Petitioner’s immigration counsel (i.e., counsel who has filed a G-28 form or equivalent) or, if the Petitioner does
31
4849-0473-7873

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 32 of 33

not have counsel, to the Petitioner; a petitioner who does file a motion to reopen will be protected by the stay until such time as the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adjudicate the motion, and the Petitioner has had the opportunity to file a petition for review and seek a stay with the Court of Appeals.
I. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from transferring Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members outside of the jurisdiction of the New England Region and/or the Boston Field Office;
J. Order Respondents/Defendants to release all Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members from detention absent an individualized determination by an impartial adjudicator that their detention is justified based on danger or flight risk, which cannot be sufficiently addressed by alternative conditions of release and/or supervision;
K. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to Petitioners/Plaintiffs; and
L. Grant such other further relief as is just and equitable.
Respectfully Submitted,
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS By Their Attorneys,

Date: September 28, 2017
4849-0473-7873

/s/ W. Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101
Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com
32

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 22 Filed 09/28/17 Page 33 of 33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on September 28, 2017.
/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero
33
4849-0473-7873

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.

)

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

CHRIS CRONEN, et al.,

)

)

Respondents. )

C.A. No. 17–CV–11842–PBS STATEMENT ON JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION

At this Court’s request, Defendants/Respondents submit this brief on subject-matter

jurisdiction.1 At a minimum, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over nearly all of the First

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs/Petitioners and should dismiss this case in full.

This Court plainly lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first two claims. Federal

law provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of

any alien arising from the decision or action by the [Secretary of Homeland Security] to . . . execute

removal orders against any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs are aliens

subject to removal orders, this case arises because of DHS’s “decision[s] or action[s]” to “execute

removal orders” against them, and Plaintiffs’ first two claims squarely challenge those “decision[s]

or action[s].” Section 1252(g) unambiguously bars this Court from exercising jurisdiction over

those claims. That is consistent with the Constitution because Congress created a separate avenue

of relief for Plaintiffs in the immigration courts and ultimately in the federal courts of appeals. But

1 Defendants respectfully reserve the right to raise other grounds for dismissal and affirmative defenses later. Defendants understand from the September 26, 2017 hearing that the Court’s principal initial concern is whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 22
they may not seek relief in this Court. A district court ruled to the contrary in Hamama v. Adducci, Civ. No. 17–cv–11910-MAG, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2017 WL 3124331 (E.D. Mich., July 24, 2017). But that decision cannot be reconciled with governing legal principles, and in any event involved different circumstances that do not call for the same outcome here.
The Court also lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ third claim as pleaded by 23 of the 24 Plaintiffs. That claim challenges Plaintiffs’ allegedly unlawful detention. But only one Plaintiff is detained. The other 23 Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim. And there is no sound basis for keeping this suit alive in this court for the one Plaintiff in: he has separately filed his own habeas petition with this Court. His claims should be made in that case. What is more, most of them do not even reside in this district, so this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.
This case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are, as of their operative complaint, 24 Indonesian nationals subject to final orders of removal. First Am. Compl. (FAC), ECF No. 22 ¶¶ 15–38. No Plaintiff alleges to reside in Massachusetts. See generally id. Plaintiffs remained in the country despite their removal orders. See id. ¶¶ 2, 50; see also Stevens Decl., “Op. Indonesian Surrender Filing” Ex. C ¶ 3.2 In 2010, in response to inquiries from representatives of the Indonesian community, U.S. Immigration and
2 Defendants augment Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the operative complaint by citing to documents produced per Court order regarding “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” and attach declarations from Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jull H. Dufrese and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) attorney team leader Christopher Gearin, to challenge the sufficiency of their asserted basis for jurisdiction under the Suspension Clause. Valentin v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001).
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 22
Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials conducted a time-limited operation for Indonesians who were subject to final orders of removal to be placed under an Order of Supervision for a specified period of time.3 Stevens Decl. ¶¶ 3–5; see also FAC ¶ 50.
Beginning in February 2017, ICE notified Plaintiffs that it would not grant additional temporary stays of removal4 to Plaintiffs and that ICE would start removing them. See FAC ¶¶ 16, 19; Stevens Pls.’ Decls, “Op. Indonesian Surrender Filing” Exs. D–Z. Only one Plaintiff, Terry Rombot, alleges he was taken into detention pending his removal. FAC ¶ 22; see also Stevens Decl. ¶ 31. He filed a habeas petition challenging his detention. See Rombot v. Moniz, Civ. No. 17-cv-11577 (D. Mass.). Thereafter, 11 Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on September 26, 2017, see ECF No. 1, along with a motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 4. On September 28, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add 13 plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege three claims. First, they claim that removing them would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and international treaties such as the Convention Against Torture (CAT) if they are not given “a fair opportunity to raise” claims that they would be persecuted or tortured if they are removed to Indonesia. FAC ¶ 77; see also id. ¶¶ 42, 74–77. Plaintiffs contend that country conditions in Indonesia have changed since their removal orders
3 8 of the 24 named Plaintiffs were, in fact, never identified as part of “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” but nonetheless granted discretionary stays of removal that are made available to qualifying individuals of all nationalities. Stevens Decl. ¶¶ 17, 23.
4 Plaintiffs do not specifically plead that ICE issued temporary stays of removal to them in conjunction with their OSUPs, but Defendants infer as much from the complaint, since Plaintiffs state that ICE began issuing “Denials of Stays of Removal.” FAC ¶ 54; see also Stevens Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8; 8 C.F.R. § 241.6 (a) (describing ICE’s procedure for issuing administrative stays of removal).
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 22
were issued, and that the INA entitles them to move to reopen their removal orders in light of these “new facts.” FAC ¶ 76. Second, based on those same allegations, Plaintiffs claim that removing them without providing an opportunity to raise claims based on changed circumstances in Indonesia “violates [the] due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment” because “they have not received their core procedural entitlement . . . to have their claims heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Id. ¶ 81; see also id. ¶¶ 77–81. Third, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he government’s detention of Petitioners/Plaintiffs bears no reasonable relationship” to its purposes and thus constitutes unlawful detention. Id. ¶ 84; see also id. ¶¶ 82–84.
Plaintiffs allege that that “[t]his Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., and Art. I § 9 cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause).” FAC ¶ 11. They also allege that “[t]his Court may also exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus statute), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure[] Act); Art. III of the United States Constitution; Amendment V to the United States Constitution; and the common law.” Id. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]his Court may grant the relief requested herein pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that they are “in custody” for the purposes of habeas jurisdiction because they are subject to Orders of Supervision (OSUPs). FAC ¶ 12. Finally, they state that this action is not barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)—which generally consolidates judicial review of removal orders into the federal courts of appeal—because “[t]he present action does not challenge the underlying orders of removal.” Id. ¶ 13.
On September 26, the Court granted Plaintiffs a TRO staying the removal of the 11 Plaintiffs named in the original complaint. ECF No. 17. After Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add 13
4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 22
Plaintiffs, they requested that the Court extended the TRO 11 to those individuals. ECF No. 23. The Court granted that request. ECF No. 28.
ANALYSIS The Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims attacking their removals because Congress expressly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear such claims. The Court also largely lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ unlawful-detention claim due to (among other reasons) lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction, since 23 of the 24 Plaintiffs are not detained and most do not even reside in this district. The remaining Plaintiff’s unlawful-detention claim does not provide an adequate basis for exercising jurisdiction over this case, as he has an individual habeas action pending with this court.
I. Congress deprived this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first two claims. Plaintiffs’ first two claims arise from the Government’s decision to execute their removal orders. Congress barred district courts from exercising jurisdiction over such claims. The relief sought in those claims may be sought only through the administrative immigration process— immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), with any available judicial review in the federal courts of appeals—not in federal district court.
a. Section 1252 prohibits this Court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first two claims. Congress made two rules clear in 8 U.S.C. § 1252. First, courts lack jurisdiction over claims attacking the Government’s decision to enforce a final removal order. Under section 1252(g), “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the [Secretary of Homeland Security] to . . . execute removal orders
5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 6 of 22
against any alien.”5 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This jurisdictional bar applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory)”—“[e]xcept as” otherwise “provided in” section 1252. Id. This unequivocal language protects the Government’s discretionary authority over whether and when to execute a removal order, Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999), and shows that “Congress knows how to bar claims in the immigration context when it desires to.”6 Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 510 F.3d 1, 11 n.2 (1st Cir. 2007); Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (“[T]he Real ID Act . . . in the plainest of language, deprives the district courts of jurisdiction in removal cases.”).
Second, aliens can obtain review of, reopening of, or stays of removal orders—but only through the established regulatory administrative procedure, with judicial review in the federal courts of appeals. Immigration courts and the BIA are vested with authority to adjudicate motions to reopen removal proceedings on the basis of “new facts,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3), and to grant stays of the execution of removal, id. § 1003.23(b)(1)(iv). Section 1252 provides that claims arising from the removal process, including a claim seeking review of a final removal order, must first be exhausted administratively and then ultimately channeled to the federal courts of appeals through petitions for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That section specifies that a petition for review is the “sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)
5 The Attorney General once exercised this authority, but that authority has been transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 375 n.1 (2005). Many of the INA’s references to the Attorney General are now understood to mean the Secretary.
6 In Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 120 (1st Cir. 1998), the First Circuit concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not bar judicial review of habeas claim a brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Congress abrogated that holding in 2005 by amending section 1252(g) to make clear that its bar applies regardless of any other statute—“including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision.” Pub. L 109-13, Div. B, sect. 106(a)(3) (2005) (emphasis added).
6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 7 of 22
(emphasis added).The section provides further that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of any cause or claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4). That holds true “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory).” Id.; see also Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Section 1252(b)(9) adds that review of “all questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States . . . shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.” Id. § 1252(b)(9) (emphasis added).
Section 1252 precludes this Court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first two claims. Plaintiffs concede that they are subject to validly issued removal orders, but challenge the execution of them. See Claim 1, FAC ¶¶ 74–77; Claim 2, see FAC ¶¶ 77–81. Plaintiffs are aliens with “removal orders against” them, this case arises because of DHS’s “decision[s] or action[s]” to “execute removal orders” against them, and Plaintiffs’ first two claims squarely challenge those “decision[s] or action[s].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Section 1252(g) directs that “no court shall have jurisdiction” to hear these “claim[s].” Id.
Plaintiffs must instead seek relief in accordance with the established administrative procedure. There, Plaintiffs can move both to reopen their removal proceedings based on changed country conditions and to stay their removals. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23. To the extent that Plaintiffs ultimately seek judicial review of their claims against their “order[s] of removal,” their “sole and exclusive means for judicial review” is a petition for review filed with a federal court of appeals seeking review of any administratively exhausted motion-to-reopen result. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (d)(1); see also id. § 1252(a)(4) (same for CAT claims); id. § 1252(b)(9) (emphasizing the breadth of this
7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 8 of 22
rule). They cannot seek such review in this Court.7 Although that process has been available since
Plaintiffs’ removal orders became final, only two of them have filed motions to reopen with the
BIA since 2010—and they were filed after September 21, 2017.8 Stevens Decl. ¶ 15.
Plaintiffs contend that section 1252 does not bar their first two claims because they seek to
challenge not their removal orders but rather the “conditions of the[ir] custody, i.e., the[ir] Orders
of Supervision, which w[ere] abruptly ended.” ECF No. 4, at 11. That is unavailing: “[A]n alien
cannot evade § 1252(g) by attempting to recharacterize a claim that, at its core, attacks the decision
to execute a removal order.” Albarran v. Wong, 157 F. Supp. 3d 779, 784 (N.D. Ill. 2016), appeal
dismissed (Apr. 13, 2016). That is what Plaintiffs are attempting. Plaintiffs cite Ali v. Napolitano,
No. CIV.A. 12-11384-FDS, 2013 WL 3929788, at *5 (D. Mass. July 26, 2013), for the proposition
that release on an OSUP constitutes custody for the purposes of a habeas petition. But the petitioner
in Ali challenged a term in his OSUP as unlawful custody. Id. Plaintiffs, by contrast, do not
7 See, e.g., Tejada v. Cabral, 424 F.Supp.2d 296, 298 (D. Mass. 2006) (“Congress made it quite clear that all court orders regarding alien removal—be they stays or permanent injunctions—were to be issued by the appropriate court of appeals.”); Aziz v. Chadbourne, No. CIV.A.07-11806-GAO, 2007 WL 3024010, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 15, 2007) (denying a plaintiff’s emergency motion for a stay of removal because “[a]ny stay of the final order of removal would squarely interfere with the “execut[ion]” of the removal order, which is prohibited by Section 1252(g)).
8 Plaintiffs allege that the urgent relief of a TRO was needed in part because Plaintiffs Freddy and Poppy Sombah received a denial of stay of removal on September 18, 2017 “without explanation” and ordered to report to the Manchester sub-office with a plane ticket to depart the United States on September 27. FAC ¶¶ 24–25. In fact, they received stay denials in February 2017. See “Op. Indonesian Surrender” Filing Ex. VV, at 10, Ex. WW, at 5. ICE informed them on August 1 that they needed to return to the Manchester, NH ICE office by September 1, with plane tickets for departure. See “Op. Indonesian Surrender” Filing Exs. X, Y. Petitioners purchased their own plane tickets on August 27, 2017 and returned on September 1, 2017. Id. On September 1, Plaintiffs filed a new request for a stay of removal, which was denied on September 18. See “Op. Indonesian Surrender” Filing Ex. VV, at 11, Ex. WW, at 4. Neither of the Sombahs sought relief from their removal orders before the immigration courts between their February 17 notice of stay denial and their September 25, 2017 filings in this Court. See Stevens Decl. ¶ 15.
8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 9 of 22
challenge any term in their OSUPs as unlawful custody; rather, Plaintiffs appear to challenge the “end[]” of their OSUPs, ECF No. 4, at 11, which, in any event, does not appear to have occurred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3)(A) (describing an OSUP as remaining in place “pending removal”); FAC ¶¶ 15–38. To the extent that Plaintiffs attack the ever-present condition in their OSUPs that they “appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of the Service, for . . . deportation or removal,” see, e.g., “Op. Indonesian Surrender” Filing Ex. VV, at 3, that lawful request is part and parcel of the Government’s discretionary authority to execute removal orders, and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars this Court’s review of such claims. Mendonca v. I.N.S., 52 F. Supp. 2d 155, 161 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 201 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 1999) (although petitioner was “in custody” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner did not “present the kind of claim that the First Circuit has held is cognizable on habeas review under [8 U.S.C. § 1252’s] new judicial review provisions.”).
Plaintiffs actually appear to be challenging ICE’s discretionary decision to deny their stays of removal, which is separate from their OSUPs. FAC ¶¶ 54, 59; 8 C.F.R. § 241.6(a) (specifying ICE’s discretionary authority to grant stays of removal). This too is barred under section 1252(g). Albarran, 157 F. Supp. 3d 779, 784–87 (section 1252(g) barred review of ICE’s denial of an administrative stay of removal). Indeed, in this case there is no daylight between ICE’s decision to execute a removal order and ICE’s decision to decline to renew a temporary stay of removal and instead order individuals subject to final removal orders to prepare and report for removal. The latter is a specific example of the former.
b. Section 1252’s bar of Plaintiffs’ first two claims is constitutional. Beyond arguing that section 1252 does not bar this Court from hearing this case, Plaintiffs assert that this Court has jurisdiction over their claims under the Suspension Clause. FAC ¶ 11.
9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 10 of 22
Plaintiffs are wrong. The Suspension Clause does not create jurisdiction where there is an adequate substitute to habeas relief. In any event, Plaintiffs’ first two claims do not even make a cognizable habeas claim. Although another district court has concluded that applying section 1252(g) to certain aliens subject to final removal orders would have violated the Suspension Clause, that case involved materially different circumstances and was wrongly decided.9 Applying section 1252(g) here is appropriate and constitutional.
i. The Administrative Motion to Reopen Process is Adequate. Congress can, consistent with the Suspension Clause, foreclose a habeas remedy if it provides an adequate substitute. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 772 (2008). To be adequate, the substitute proceeding “must have the means to correct errors that occurred during the” proceeding that is being challenged. Id. at 786. The administrative-review process, under which a Plaintiff can move an immigration court to reopen his removal proceeding and stay removal pending that consideration, is adequate to address Plaintiffs’ challenges to their removal orders. The administrative review process is adequate because it provides comprehensive procedures that include “the means to correct errors,” including in exigent circumstances. Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 786. After a removal order is final and enforceable, an alien may file a motion to reopen before the immigration court or BIA if circumstances have changed. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23. There are no time or numerical limits for motions based upon materially changed country conditions in the country to which the alien will be removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The requirements for the motion are not elaborate. The motion need only “state the new facts that will be proven” and include evidence relating to those facts. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); see 8 C.F.R. §. §§ 1003.2(c)(1),
9 The Government has appealed the order. Hamama et al., v. Homan et al., 17-2171 (6th Cir.). 10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 11 of 22
1003.23. The BIA allows for the submission “of supplemental evidence.” Board Practice Manual § 5.2(f); see also Dufresne Decl. (Imm. Ct. Decl.), Ex. A ¶ 16 (stating that where removal is imminent the immigration court will take into account that the stay request and motion to reopen may have been prepared without sufficient time for the alien to submit all appropriate evidence).
Once a motion to reopen is filed, the alien may seek a stay of removal from the immigration court or the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.6(a)–(b), 1241.6(a)–(b); see generally Im. Court Decl. The immigration courts and the BIA consider emergency stay requests on an expedited basis. The immigration courts, in turn, are, “to the greatest extent practicable, dedicated to issuing decisions in a timely manner so that no alien with a pending motion is removed from the United States prior to receiving an adjudication of his or her stay request and/or motion to reopen.” Imm. Ct. Decl. ¶ 13 And the BIA has created the Emergency Stay Unit (Unit) designed for exactly the type of circumstances presented here, “to achieve the timely adjudication of every [stay request] it receives.” Gearin Decl. (BIA Decl.), Ex. B ¶ 17.
Just as in this Court, the traditional stay standards are relevant in immigration courts. These standards also apply in the federal appellate courts, see Nken, 556 U.S. at 433–34, where Plaintiffs may turn after exhausting administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (d)(1). And, like this Court, federal appellate courts are can act on an expedited basis in these circumstances. See, e.g., Khan v. Attorney General, 691 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 2012) (panel “granted the petitioners a temporary stay of removal” in case where petitioner alleged that BIA had not “adjudicated their motion” that was filed “within hours of [the alien’s] scheduled removal”).
Given these procedures, every court of appeals to address the issues raised here have concluded that the administrative process provides an adequate substitute for habeas. The Sixth Circuit has held that “[b]ecause a petition for review provides an alien with the availability of the same scope
11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 12 of 22
of review as a writ of habeas corpus, . . . facially, the limitation on habeas corpus relief in the REAL ID Act [codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(g)] does not violate the Suspension Clause.” Muka v. Baker, 559 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2009). Other courts of appeals are in accord. See Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] potential motion to reopen at the administrative level and the possibility of judicial review thereafter provides the necessary process to alleviate Suspension Clause concerns.”); Alexandre v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 452 F.3d 1204, 1206 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Th[e] procedure [of moving the BIA to reopen or reconsider its previous ruling and filing a petition for review in the court of appeals] offers the same review as that formerly afforded in habeas corpus . . . . Since the substitute remedy of a petition for review offers the same scope of review as a habeas remedy, it is adequate and effective.”) (internal citations omitted); Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (ruling that the motion to reopen process “provides Petitioners with an adequate and effective substitute for habeas”); cf. Enwonwu v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 22, 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding no merit to the petitioner’s argument that the REAL ID Act violates the Suspension Clause because the court of appeals could fully review the questions of law raised in the case at bar on a petition for review).
Plaintiffs make several arguments for why the motion-to-reopen process is inadequate. None has merit. First, Plaintiffs contend that motions to reopen “require substantial time and resources.” FAC ¶ 60. But a request for preliminary relief also requires time and the support of evidentiary materials of at least a similar quality. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) (discussing “evidence that is received on the motion”). Habeas rules require a similar showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (petitioner must show “custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treats”); Habeas Rule 2 (habeas petition must “specify all the grounds for relief” and “state the facts supporting each ground”). Plaintiffs have failed to take any action on their immigration cases, even after being
12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 13 of 22
notified—some as early as February of this year—that their stay requests were denied and being provided sixty days in which to purchase tickets and depart the United States. See Stevens Pls. Decls. “Op. Indonesian Surrender” Filing Exs. D–Z.
Indeed, the available processes in the administrative forum are better suited than those in a federal court. To start, the BIA has a Unit to handle stay requests. See generally BIA Decl. That Unit is designed to ensure consideration of stay requests before an alien is removed. The immigration courts regularly address these issues; they are familiar with the timing of stay requests and the equities in individual cases. See Imm. Ct. Decl. ¶¶ 13–16. Each claim for relief turns on an individual circumstances, and the immigration courts and the BIA are best suited (and mandated by law) to consider those individual circumstances, not this Court. Finally, the immigration courts are more familiar and better equipped to review an individual case’s facts and procedural history, see Imm. Ct. Decl. ¶ 15, information that is not readily available in district court.10
Second, Plaintiffs state that they must obtain their “complete immigration files” kept by DHS. ECF No. 4, at 10; see also FAC ¶ 61. Plaintiffs do not allege that they have ever made any attempts to seek their files during the many years in which they have been present in the United States. And
10 There is one difference between the process this Court may provide and the process available to every petitioner in the immigration courts and the courts of appeals: this Court may have authority to certify a class and grant class-wide relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. There is considerable debate as to whether class action procedures may be used in habeas cases. Cf. Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 260 n.10 (1984) (“[w]e have never decided” whether Rule 23 “is applicable to petitions for habeas corpus relief”). But that kind of relief is particularly inappropriate where the right to relief—here, reopening of a removal order based upon allegations of future treatment— depends on an individual’s specific circumstances that are relevant to that possible treatment. The administrative reopening process is far better suited to consider those facts in each individual case before the circuit court of appeals may judicially review any challenged result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Given the fully adequate administrative process available to Plaintiffs, the Court need not wade into that debate here.
13

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 14 of 22
their claims turn on allegedly changed circumstances in Indonesia—facts that of necessity must be new and thus will not be in the files kept by DHS. Moreover, the challenge in obtaining evidence applies to proceedings in this Court as well and does not suggest that the motion to reopen process is inadequate. Those concerns are especially misplaced given the nature of a motion to reopen. Regardless of forum, an alien should know the procedural history of his case and would be uniquely aware of new facts relating to her potential treatment upon return to Indonesia.
Third, Plaintiffs allege that ICE’s decision to decline to renew Plaintiffs’ applications for temporary removal came without warning and deprived Plaintiffs of “a reasonable opportunity . . . to research and understand their rights and seek appropriate relief in appropriate forum.” FAC ¶ 54. Plaintiffs do not explain how this allegation bears on any Suspension Clause claim. And these allegations cut against allowing Plaintiffs to proceed in this Court. ICE’s initial discretionary decision to issue stays of removal permitted Plaintiffs to lawfully stay in the United States for a specified period, allowing them time to apply for the very motion to reopen relief they now seek.
While that path was, and is still, available to Plaintiffs in the immigration courts, it is telling that all but two Plaintiffs sat on these rights and, even then, waited until September 21, 2017— four days prior to the commencement of this litigation—to file motions to reopen with the BIA. Stevens Decl. ¶ 15. Plaintiffs do not allege that ICE promised never to remove Plaintiffs or to automatically renew their temporary stays of removal and orders of supervision. Neither ICE’s temporary stays nor the OSUPs invalidated Plaintiffs’ final removal orders, and there is no basis to reasonably believe that those actions gave rise to a “settled position” of permanent relief from removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3)(A) (OSUPs); 8 C.F.R. § 241.5 (same); 8 C.F.R. § 241.6 (a)
14

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 15 of 22
(discretionary stays of removal from ICE). ICE commonly issues temporary stays of removal in their discretion, and also commonly revokes them or declines to renew them.11
In sum, the forum that Congress created as the exclusive one for Plaintiffs’ first two claims— the immigration courts and BIA—possess the authority to address exigent circumstances and provide complete adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (no time limit for motions to reopen based on changed country conditions). It is adequate and consistent with the Suspension Clause in directing claims to that forum.
ii. Plaintiffs do not plead a cognizable habeas claim. Even if the motion-to-reopen process were inadequate, that would not present any problem under the Suspension Clause because that Clause protects against denying a forum for rights properly cognizable in habeas. “Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention,” and “[t]he typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008); see, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”). Yet, in their first two claims, Plaintiffs seek a stay of removal, not release from illegal custody. Therefore, Plaintiffs do not request a traditional exercise of this Court’s habeas jurisdiction that is protected by the Suspension Clause. Nor would such a suit be cognizable in a statutory habeas action under these precedents. Plaintiffs invoke habeas jurisdiction not to pursue release, but rather to halt to their upcoming removal. ECF No. 4, at 7 (Plaintiffs “seek[] to vindicate [their] rights to fairly and fully seek
11 See, e.g., Rodriguez-Guardado v. Smith, No. CV 17-10300-RGS, 2017 WL 4225626, at *1– *3 (D. Mass. Sept. 22, 2017) (El Salvadorian national with a final order of removal had received discretionary stays from ICE from 2012–2016 before being denied a stay in March of this year and subsequently filing a motion to reopen and an emergency stay of removal with the BIA).
15

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 16 of 22
protection against religious persecution through the filings of motions to reopen with the Immigration Court and/or Board of Appeals.”). That is not a traditional habeas protection. “[P]etitioners invoking habeas jurisdiction must assert claims that sound in habeas,” Aamer, 742 F.3d at 1033; habeas is not a place holder to exercise some different statutory or procedural right.
Nor is such a novel use of habeas consistent with the statute, which confers jurisdiction to review a claim of “custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b)(3). As the Supreme Court explained in Munaf, “the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to enjoin release.” 553 U.S. at 682; see Preiser, 411 U.S. at 484 (1973); Martin, 391 F.3d at 714 (no habeas jurisdiction to over transfer claim). Because the claims do not seek to end unlawful detention, they are invalid habeas claims and cannot undermine Congress’s path for review and clear bar on a claim to halt the “execut[ion of] removal orders.”12 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
Finally, to the extent that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) eliminates the authority of this court to consider classwide relief, that does not violate the Suspension Clause. Whatever the precise contours of the “core” habeas rights protected by the Suspension Clause, they do not include this type of modern class action. See Harris, 394 U.S. at 294 n.5.
In sum, Plaintiffs’ use of a habeas remedy to halt their removals is not encompassed by section 2241 nor so inherent in traditional habeas as to require invalidation of Congress’s statutorily prescribed and adequate method to review such claims.
12 Further, the Suspension Clause does not apply to override Congress’s chosen framework for evaluating CAT claims. “Congress limited judicial review under the [CAT] to claims raised in a challenge to a final order of removal.” Kiyemba, 561 F.3d at 514 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4)). That statute makes clear that the CAT—which is not self-executing—provides enforceable rights only in the administrative removal proceedings authorized by Congress. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4). The CAT therefore cannot form the basis of a habeas claim under statute, much less allow one to invoke the Suspension Clause and invalidate the procedure Congress has crafted.
16

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 17 of 22
c. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Hamama v. Adducci is misplaced. In arguing that applying section 1252(g) would violate the Suspension Clause, Plaintiffs rely on Hamama v. Adducci, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 17–cv–11910, 2017 WL 3124331 (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2017). That decision was wrong and should not be extended beyond what the court there viewed as “extraordinary circumstances” that drove its holding. Id. at *1. Hamama arose after ICE detained for removal Iraqi nationals with longstanding final removal orders that ICE had been long unable to execute, due to Iraq’s general refusal to accept the return of most such individuals. The plaintiffs moved the district court for an emergency stay of removal until they had had the chance to file motions to reopen and until the immigration courts (and the federal courts of appeals, if necessary) had a chance to adjudicate their protection claims. Id. at *2. The Hamama court agreed with the Government that “if constitutional, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) would apply because the plaintiffs’ claims arose out of the Attorney General’s decision to execute their final orders of removal.” Id. at *7; see also id. at *8. But the court concluded that enforcing section 1252(g)’s bar “in the present circumstances violates the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.” Id. The court recognized that the INA prescribed the administrative remedy of motions to reopen for aliens with final orders of removal to challenge the lawfulness of their removal orders and to raise changed country conditions, but it found that “the compelling confluence of grave, real-world circumstances present in this case” meant that remedy could offer no relief. Id. at *9. This Court should not embrace Hamama. First, Hamama was wrongly decided because it disregarded the availability of the motion to reopen process to address individual CAT claims, and instead erroneously assumed that most class members would face torture and persecution if removed. Id. at *9. But every case involving a motion to reopen citing changed country conditions alleges that removal would result in torture or persecution. Assuming that to be true for every class
17

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 18 of 22
member, as the court did in Hamama, evades the requirements of the statute and regulations implementing the United States’ obligations under the CAT that an individual establish a threat in that person’s own individual circumstances within the immigration court procedure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4). That type of class-wide presumption of torture is not warranted factually and eviscerates congressional channeling of review for these types of allegations into the administrative process that is uniquely well-suited to consider such individual claims.
Second, Hamama’s holding was driven by circumstances that are materially different from those here. Extending its holding based on what the Hamama court believed to be “extraordinary circumstances” to Plaintiffs’ allegations would be inappropriate. To start, Plaintiffs are, with a sole exception, not detained, rendering inapplicable the concerns in Hamama about the plaintiffs being unable to adequately litigate their motions to reopen due to being arrested and placed in detention facilities. In Hamama, the court found that the decision to transfer detainees to different locations within the country made it more difficult for the detainees to file motions to reopen. 2017 WL 3124331, at *11. Here, however, Plaintiffs provide no allegations of being hindered from filing motions to reopen due to their detention and/or transfer; nor could they. See generally FAC. To the extent Plaintiffs have not already filed motions to reopen, it is because they continue to sit on their rights, not because any detention and/or transfer between detention facilities allegedly may have hindered their ability to do so, as alleged in Hamama.
The court in Hamama also found that by the time Iraq’s country conditions worsened in 2014, the plaintiffs reasonably believed it was unlikely they would be removed, given that Iraq had generally refused to accept removals from the United States for over a decade, an unusual circumstance. Hamama, 2017 WL 3124331, at *10. Here, however, Plaintiffs do not allege that Indonesia had refused to accept their return, thus rendering their removals a remote possibility, see
18

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 19 of 22
generally FAC; rather, they allege that ICE allowed them temporary stays of removal—a common occurrence that should not be presumed to be a permanent state of relief from removal.
II. But for one Plaintiff, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ unlawfuldetention claim and should dismiss that claim in full. Plaintiffs’ third claim “challenge[s] any actual or anticipated detention, which bears no reasonable relationship to any legitimate purpose.” FAC ¶ 8. This Court has held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not preclude habeas challenges to immigration detention. Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42–43 (1st Cir. 2005). But this claim lacks jurisdiction over this claim as to all but one Plaintiff, who has a separate habeas petition pending in this Court, because they are undetained. Dismissal is warranted because the 23 non-detained Plaintiffs lack standing. Those Plaintiffs do not allege that they are detained, let alone detained in Massachusetts. See FAC ¶¶ 15–38. Rather, they state that they subject to OSUPs. Id. An individual subject to an OSUP is not in immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 696, 700 (2001) (distinguishing between detention and supervised release subject to conditions). These 23 Plaintiffs cannot show an actual or imminent injury-in-fact, because they do not establish that detention has occurred or is “certainly impending.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014). Their claim is also unripe because they have failed to allege any specific facts regarding their detention that would be capable of judicial review. “[A] claim is ripe only if the party bringing suit can show both that the issues raised are fit for judicial decision at the time the suit is filed and that the party bringing suit will suffer hardship if court consideration is withheld.” Labor Relations Div. of Constr. Indus. of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Healey, 844 F.3d 318, 326 (1st Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs’ claim has not “ripen[ed]” into an actual “dispute,” and instead remains “only hypothetical,” thus unfit for judicial decision at this time. Reddy v. Foster, 845 F.3d 493, 505 (1st
19

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 20 of 22
Cir. 2017). Further, Plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate “direct and immediate harm” from detention, thus falling short in establishing hardship in the absence of court consideration of their claim. Labor Relations Div., 844 F.3d at 330. And of course, the orders of supervision are entirely lawful.
Further, most Plaintiffs do not establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over their habeas claims, because even if they were detained—which they are not—none allege that they, and most do not appear to, reside in the District of Massachusetts.13 Stevens Decl. ¶ 7 (stating that the operation was conducted in Manchester, New Hampshire); see Stevens Pls. Decls. Exs. D–Z; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446–47 (2004) (jurisdiction exists only in the district where the petitioner is confined).
One Plaintiff does allege that he is detained, but his presence in this case does not counsel against dismissal. Terry Rombot has filed his own habeas petition challenging his allegedly unlawful detention. Rombot v. Moniz, Civ. No. 17-cv-11577 (D. Mass.). His claim can be addressed in that first-filed action. There is no sound basis for allowing Plaintiffs’ putative class action to proceed on the unlawful-detention claim when that claim is obviously not ready for judicial resolution, let alone this venue, for the overwhelming majority of Plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION This Court should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
13 Further, of the three plaintiffs within the District of Massachusetts, two did not participate in the 2010 operation that serves as the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims, and the third already has a habeas petition pending before this Court. Stevens Decl. ¶¶ 17–19. Six of the New Hampshire plaintiffs also were not part of the 2010 operation. Stevens Decl. ¶¶ 17, 23.
20

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 21 of 22

Dated: October 3, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation
WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal Vinita B. Andrapalliyal Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 598-8085 Fax: (202) 305-7000 vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov

21

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36 Filed 10/03/17 Page 22 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.

Dated: October 3, 2017

/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice

22

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 6 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 36-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 5

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

NOTICE OF PRODUCTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to this Court’s order dated September 27, 2017, ECF No. 19, Respondents hereby provide the Court with documents relating to the Program – Operation Indonesian Surrender.

DATED: October 3, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation
WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation
VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL Trial Attorney
/s/ Michael A. Celone MICHAEL A. CELONE Trial Attorney District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation

1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 2 Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 305-2040 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: Michael.A.Celone@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on October 3, 2017.
/s/ Michael A. Celone MICHAEL A. CELONE
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ NOTICE OF PRODUCTION • Ex. A: June 2010 Letter from ICE-ERO Boston Field Office Director to Rev. Kaper-Dale • Ex. B: “Operation N.H. Surrender” Operation Plan • Ex. C: Stevens declaration regarding “Operation Indonesian Surrender” • Ex. D: Petterson declaration regarding Angus SETIAWAN • Ex. E: Petterson declaration regarding Lia DEVITRI • Ex. F: Stevens declaration regarding Roy ANTOUW • Ex. G: Stevens declaration regarding Kaloh SYANE • Ex. H: Stevens declaration regarding Arnold BUDIHARDJO • Ex. I: Stevens declaration regarding Virake BUDIHARDJO • Ex. J: Stevens declaration regarding Michael EMAN • Ex. K: Stevens declaration regarding Eva GRASJE • Ex. L: Stevens declaration regarding Heru KURNIAWAN • Ex. M: Stevens declaration regarding John LONDA • Ex. N: Stevens declaration regarding Meldy LUMANGKUN
1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 3
• Ex. O: Stevens declaration regarding Martin LUMINGKEWAS • Ex. P: Stevens declaration regarding Meivie LUMINGKEWAS • Ex. Q: Stevens declaration regarding Mambo GREACE • Ex. R: Stevens declaration regarding Sonny MAMBO • Ex. S: Stevens declaration regarding Eddy PANJAITAN • Ex. T: Stevens declaration regarding Deetje PATTY • Ex. U: Stevens declaration regarding Christian PENTURY • Ex. V: Stevens declaration regarding Hesti RIMPER • Ex. W: Stevens declaration regarding Linaria SINAGA • Ex. X: Stevens declaration regarding Freddy SOMBAH • Ex. Y: Stevens declaration regarding Poppy SOMBAH • Ex. Z: Stevens declaration regarding Debby WALANDOW • Ex. AA: Pertinent A-file materials of Roy ANTOUW • Ex. BB: Pertinent A-file materials of Arnold BUDIHARDJO • Ex. CC: Pertinent A-file materials of Virake BUDIHARDJO • Ex. DD: Pertinent A-file materials of Patty DEETJE • Ex. EE: Pertinent A-file materials of Lia DEVITRI • Ex. FF: Pertinent A-file materials of Michael EMAN • Ex. GG: Pertinent A-file materials of Eva GRASJE • Ex. HH: Pertinent A-file materials of Syane KALOH • Ex. II: Pertinent A-file materials of Heru KURNIAWAN • Ex. JJ: Pertinent A-file materials of John LONDA
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 3
• Ex. KK: Pertinent A-file materials of Meldy LUMANGKUN • Ex. LL: Pertinent A-file materials of Meivie LUMINGKEWAS • Ex. MM: Pertinent A-file materials of Martin LUMINGKEWAS • Ex. NN: Pertinent A-file materials of Greace MAMBO • Ex. OO: Pertinent A-file materials of Sonny MAMBO • Ex. PP: Pertinent A-file materials of Eddy PANJAITAN • Ex. QQ: Pertinent A-file materials of Christian PENTURY • Ex. RR: Pertinent A-file materials of Hesti RIMPER • Ex. SS: Pertinent A-file materials of Terry ROMBOT • Ex. TT: Pertinent A-file materials of Agus SETIANAN • Ex. UU: Pertinent A-file materials of Linaria SINAGA • Ex. VV: Pertinent A-file materials of Freddy SOMBAH • Ex. WW: Pertinent A-file materials of Poppy SOMBAH • Ex. XX: Pertinent A-file materials of Debby WALANDOW
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 143
Exhibit A

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 143
Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office ll.S. Departmeat of Homeland ~rurity 10 N ew EngiWld Executive Park BurlingtOn, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
June 23, 2010
Reverend Seth Kaper-Dale Reformed Church ofHighland Park
Dear Reverend Kaper-Dale:
Thank you for your recent comrnunkation regarding the circumstances ofa certain {ndonesian community in New England. We take your communication as an expression ofgeneral concern for this community and not as any formal or legal representation of the particular members of this community.
ShouJd any member of this community who is subject to a fmal removal order desire to seek a stay of removal upon surrender to ICE, we would be favorably disposed to accord an initial 90-day stay of removal for any who surrender before August 15, 2010. The 90-day period is sufficient for ICE to fully adjudicate the stay request. This assumes that the person surrendering does not have any criminal history, is not otherwise deemed a security concern. is not a persecutor, and files and submits an I-246 Application for Stay Of Removal, supported by documentation, at or before the time of surrender to ICE.
Each person's immigration situation involves a mixed question oflaw and fact, and of course must be decided on a case by case basis. Ifafter adjudication it is determined that a particular stay appHcation warrants a further grant ofstay period beyond the initial 90 days, notification of that decision will be provided to the applicant. Conversely, a denial notice will also be provided where that is the decision.
ICE reserves the right to condition any grant of stay of removal upon continuing assumptions, not limited to the understanding applicants and grantees remain law abiding and do not become a focus of criminal and or national security or human rights abuse inquiries.
ce E. Chadbourne Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 143
Exhibit B

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 143
Department of Homeland Securit} Immigration a nd Cus toms Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations
Boston Field Office Fugitive Operations Team Operation NH Surrender
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR (FOD) APPROVED FUGITIVE OPERATIONS PLAN:
Law Enforcement Sensitive-Official Use Only
IIltming: /hi., tlocumem il L1\'( I 1\'.'i/f"/£01/FOR OFFICI I/ ( ·SF(}\"/ I' (('liFO( ()). It nmtmn.< mfin-m.uum tlwt mal />,• <'.YcmptJrom
publu rd l 1.••· undcr tltt• Frudom o/ 111./<•rmatmn Act f5 l S ( 55 'J lit.• to he controlled, swt.:d /t,mcl/ed tron,mu,•d dl\tnhut~d and
dtsposcd 11{111 Clccordance 11'1111 Dff.~ pufln n:la1111~ ro /·OCU tr!JilflllalHm wul 1s nur tub.: rc/Ll~ed tu rile publR or othct p.:rJ<mnd "ho 'I" not /t,n·e '' \'aful "needttJ· knoll'" u'l/lumtprtm approl'al •?fan awl/lln;,·d I>HS ojjicwl. \'o pllrlitm ofthil rcport .\ltanltl he j umi<lwd to tlte m etfitt, l'itlt er In written or W!rbul form.
Revised 07/ 19/20 10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 143
Department or Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations
ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS BOSTON Fl ELD OFFICE

I. Situation

The objective of Operation

is to apply an organized, methodical

approach to the location and atTest of Immigration and Customs Enrorcement (fCE)

fugitive aliens, previously removed aliens, removable aliens convicted of crimes, and

otherwise dangerous al icns at large within the Boston Field Office Area of Operational

Responsibility (AOR).

The Field Office Director (FOD), Deputy Field Office Director (DFOD) and Assistant Field Office Director (AfOD) have been briefed on this operational plan. and support its execution.

A) ICE Fugitive Aliens- (50-100)

Fifty (50) to one hundred (1 00) aliens have been identified through liaison with

non-governmental organizations within the Indonesian community in New

Hampshire. The fugitive Aliens will voluntarily surrender to BOS Fugitive

Operations during the times listed beiO\\. The ICE fugitives may comprise of

aliens found within the three Tier

of Priorities for F 'live 0

The number of Tier I Fugitive Aliens, Tier 2 Previously Removed Aliens and Tier 3 Removable Aliens Convicted of Crimes is unknown at tllis time.
B) Hours of Operation
Team members will conduct necessary pre-operational site preparation as resources permit. Operational hours will be from 1000 hrs to 1800 hrs each day. Although the operational hours will be from 1000 h.rs to 1800 hrs daily, the team leader(s) will determine the actual duty hours. No operation will begin prior to 0600 h.rs or after 2200 Ins. unless the FOD has reviewed the case. and given approval based on specific justification for each case (attachment three). All
2 La'' Enforcement Sensitive-Official Usc Onl)
Waming: Tlti.~ document;, £,,\ '( l_l.\'SIFlED!!FOR OFFICII! L.SI: (),\/ I' (£'1/F0£'0). It comvm' u!fi1TII1<1tllmtharm,n· hi! exempt from puhhc ri!!LAse under th<' J. rn•dt>/11 of lnlomwrum Act (5 i .~ (' 55:!) Itt.\ 111/w, nlllmfled .11ored. h<~ndled IIWH /1111/ed. dtstrlhlfl<•d. and
dnpused 11/ tll arcurdancc 11 11/t /JIIS puiJn rtdwmx w FOUJ llt/itt i//(I{I0/1 wrd IS not l<t be rt:L£.-Ised w r/u: pu/1/tc m other pcrsumtd "!10 do
nolltm·e a m ltd "need -tn-(nnll'" 11 11/mul t>rim upproml o(on outhon:~.-111/l'\ ll(ficwl No ptlrtinn ofthis repnr/ , fumit/ be furnished ttl the llll!llill, t'ilher in wrifll'll or ,,,,rbul.furnl.
Revised 07/ 19/2010

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 6 of 143
Department of l-lomcland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Opera tions
activities will be conducted pursuant to the National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) Policy and Procedures. Supervisory staff will change shift hours as needed in order to facilitate the operation. Operational hours will be between 1000 lu·s to 1800 lu·s .
C) Local Situation
The Boston Fugitive Operations Team(s) will conduct the operation with support from other resources from the Boston field Office. Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), as well as the following Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs): Strafford County Sheriffs Ofiice and Dover Police Department. 1l1e FOD has committed all necessary resources within their jurisdiction. (See attached Excel spreadsheet for Team and LEA breakdown)
D) Operation al Oe-Contliction
Homeland Security lnvestigations (ElSI) has been advised of the operation and
has stated that they do not anticipate any conflict in the area and have declined to
participate. No additional request for assistance was made ERO. The ICE fugitive aliens will be queried in TECS utili · to ensure de-contliction with HSf and other law enforcement entities.
I£) Local Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)
The Fugitive Operations Team (FOT) Supervisory Detention and Deportation
Officer (SDDO) shall advise local LEAs prior to the execution of any
I leadquarters (HQ) approved or FOD approved fugitive operation plan. The standard operating procedure for local law enforcement agencies will vary from location to location and should be established through proactive liaison. In the presence of exigent circumstances. the FOD will be made aware of the
circumstances and concw· with written justification not to notify the local LEAs.
F) Community Issues or Politically Sensitive Issues
Three days prior to the execution of the operation, the field office will provide the
Oflice of Public Affairs (OPA) and Ot11ce of Congressional Relations (OCR)
with the specifics of the operation, to include the operational dates and location of the initiative.
3 Law Enforcement Seusitive-Ofticial Use Only
Waming: Thi~ lftlmment is CJNCIASS!FIEDIIFOR OFF/C/4/ I 'S£ ON/. l ' (U/IFOUO). II cnmnw< mjnrmatinn tlu11mny /le t!¥1'111/'1./i-nlll public rei 1:..-lse wuierthe l·i-eedom 'II" il!fbrmalion .Jet (5 US.C 55~) It is to be controlled, stored, lwndltd. Jranrmilltd. diSinhut<'d, Ollll titspose'/ oj maccorcfance 111//i Uf/S poltC) relatmg 10 J·UvU tllj/Jntwtw/1 and Mnot to he rttLI:.Ased 10 file p~obltc or oiltel personnel 1rl1o do oM htw(! '' ,·abd "nc!~·d-lf> la1o'r " u·itlwuJ pnor appro\·a) qlan muhort.:C'd /)J/.\ ' qjficw/. f\/o ptJrliQn o.(this report shnulil Ju furui.,·Ju:tltn tlu' 11/Pditr. either in written t>r 1-erha/forlll
Revised 07I 19120 10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 7 of 143
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations
G) Juveniles
The ICE ERO Boston Fugitive Operations Team does not anticipate any juvenile issues or encounters during this operation. 1n the event that minors arc identified, or encountered. family members, care providers and community. as well as state and county juvenile resources, will be examined and a plan of care for the juveniles will be addressed prior to the commencement of operations. At this time, there arc no juveniles identified/targeted for this operation.
lf unaccompanied alien juveniles are encountered, the local juvenile coordinator will be contacted for guidance. If they are unavailable. the Onice of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will be notified at 202-401-5709 after all processing tasks are performed.
In the event that juvenile(s) are present. and their presence was not anticipated during operational enforcement activities. the SDDO and Team Leaders may need to seek assistance from the state or local govermnental agency responsible for juvenile issues, i.e. Child Protective Services (CPS). As such, the SDDO and team leaders are in possession of the agency's appropriate contact numbers, to be used as deemed necessary throughout the entirety of the operation. See attachment for Jist of contact agencies and phone numbers.
Whenever possible, juveniles will be placed in the care of immediate family members that have no ascertainable criminal history. If there are no other options, sole care givers who are subject to removaL that have no ascertainable criminal record may be placed on an Order of Supervision or Order of Release on Recognizance with SDDO/AFOD approval.
H) Prosecutions
ln instances where an alien is amenable to prosecution, the case will be presented to the United States Attorney's Office/State Attorney's Office as appropriate. If the case is accepted for prosecution, an 1-247, Immigration Detainer will be filed with the agency assuming custody ofthe alien. If the United States Attorney's Office/State Attorney's Of1ice declines to prosecute. the declination will be recorded in the narrative portion of the J-213 and included in file.
4 Law Enforcement Sensitive-Official Usc Only
Waming: This document is UNCI.ASSI FlED!/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (l/1/FOUO). /1 conf(IJns 111[armation that may he <!.temptji·om public reLEAse under 1/i~ Freedom o(lnjarmauon Act (5 U.S.C 55]J. /1 IS to be controlled. stored. handled. transnulled. d Jstrihmed. and
diSposed r1{111 accordance mth ONS po!IC\ rela1111g 111 FOUO 111/onnatmn a11d1s /Wito be reUiAsed tv the public vr mher personnl!l wh11 do
notlw•·e tt ml1d "nced-to·knv\1" ll"ithoul prior approml <!("'' <111tliorb!d [)liS official. No portion oft/tis report ~-hou/d be fumished lo Ilie media. either in wrillen or •·erbulform.
Revised 07/19/2010

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 8 of 143
Department of Homeland Secul"ity Immigration and Customs ltnforcement Enforcement anti Removal Operations
I) Gangs The ICE ERO Boston fugitive Operations Team does not anticipate any issues or encounters involving gangs during this operation. In the event that ICE personnel encounter an alien affiliated with a street gang, ot1icers will record the appropriate infmmation on form I-2 13 and photograph any tattoos. A copy ofthe 1-213 and photos will be forwarded to the officer responsible for entering the subject's infom1ation into the [CE gang database. ICE Definitions of Gang Member· and Gang Associate
5 Law Enforcement Sensitive-Official Use Only
IVnmin;:: Thi.; i/ocume/11 is C:NC/.AS\'1FIEDI FOR OFFICIAl. liSE ON/. Y (UIIFOUO). It comams m/imnanonth<ltmm be exempt (rom pub!J~ reLEAse tmd,•r tlte Fr£•edom q{fnj'ormauon let (5 U S.C 551). !Jt.! lo becomroll~d. .110/'ed, handled. Jrmz.wutft•d, dtstniliiNd. and !(t~pvsed t~(m ucwrd£mce •rult 0/fS pvlicy relartng ru fOUU 11lji.mnarwn "1111 u 110 110 IJe reLI~Ased 10 tile ptti>IJC or otlutr persun11elwllo clu nol hm·l! n ,·olul "m11Jd~ft-,.know'' hl/lmut pnor approwrf ofan (711/)mn=ed DJ/.'\ <iflicial 1\'o portion ojlhir; rt!porl shou/tl b~furnidlt1rl In lhf! llll!diu, l!illtl!r in wrillm ur verbalji>mL
Revised 07/ 19/20 l 0

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 9 of 143
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and C usto ms E nforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations

II. Mission.

Operation

is an effort to apply an organized, methodical approach to

the location and arrest of ICE fugitive aliens, previously removed aliens, removable

aliens convicted of crimes. or aliens otherwise amenable to removal at large within the

Boston Field Office(s) AOR. The sustained cooperation of other LEAs throughout the

area is paramount in order to be successful in this initiative.

This initiative is the result ortiaison between ICE ERO and non-govemmental organizations supporting the Indonesian community in New Hampshire.

Execution

A) Directors Intent

This operation is being conducted pursuant to the National Fugitive Operations Program Policy and Procedures (Ch.19). The primary mission of the National Fugitive Operations Program is to reduce the backlog of ICE fugitives throughout the United States. The National Fug itive Operations Program add itionally focuses resources to apprehend and remove previously removed a liens. removable aliens convicted of crimes, and otherwise dangerous aliens at large in the
community.

B) Concept of Operations

The operation will consist of one (1) designated arrest team in the AOR. The team will consist of members of the Boston fOT; the team will also be assisted by Deportati on Officers (DOs) and Immi gration Enforcement Agents (I EAs) from the Cri minal Alien Program (CAP), detained I non-detained sections of Boston ERO. One DO will be assigned as the Team Leader (TL) and one will be assigned as the File Control Officer (FCO). The teams will be assigned unmarked vehicles as well as secu re transport vehicles lor their usc.
The Strafford County Sheriffs Office has designated a staging area tor the mobile processing van at the Strafford County Superior Court in Dover, N I-l . During the hours of operation, anyone subject to a Jinal removal order will have an opportunity to surrender themselves and lite an Application for a Stay of Removal. The rOD would be 1avorably disposed to accord an initial 90-day stay of removal provided the person surrendering does not have any criminal history. is not otherwise deemed a security concern, is not a persecutor, and files and
6 La'' Rnforcement Sensitive-Official Use Onl~
Wumi11g: This docummt iJ F·\C/ ·ISS/ FIEDIIFOR OFFICIAl. I .\£ OYI r ( Lif/FOUO). II ,.,n1<un.1 m/t~fll~<~lll•lllh,lllll<l\ ht• aempl from
Jmhltc rd.F:.-1.-.· 11nder th~ rr,·.:<i/111111/ h!li•rmatwll Act (5 l S ( · 5521 {I" '" ht• nmtrolled stun•d. IJ,uulf.:d. lrammtll<!d. dmribur.·d '""' cfnposecl q{111 accordance 111//t {)//.'\flO!" r rt'latmg tu NJUU ttiiomwtlcm and tJ 1/Utlo bete/.E,tred w the pu/>1"· ut utlt<!r p.:rsumtd uhu do /lUI lun·,· a mire/ "'lll.'•·dtfl·knmr" wttlmur prmrupproml o(lm oullwn:C'd 1>11.\ q(fi•·wl. No portion nfthi~ N'ptlrl slunrlrl befumislll!llto tlte media. either 111 wrilteu or \'erl//1/jim11.
Revised 07/ J9/20 I 0

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 10 of 143
Department of Homeland Security lmmigration and Custom~ Enforcement Enforcement and Remova l Operations
submits an I-246 Application for Stay of RemovaL supported by documentation, at or before the time of surrender.
Fugitives with criminal records who surrender will be taken into custody in order to pursue removal eiforts absent exigent circumstances.
Criminal non-fugitives who surrender will be taken into custody in order to pursue removal etTorts absent exigent circumstances.
As the focus of this operation is on fugitive aliens and non-fugitive criminal aliens. non-criminal non-fugitives aliens who wish to surrender will be evaluated on a case by case basis and a determination will be made whether to issue a Notice to Appear or serve a G-56 Call- In to report at a later date.
This operation will consist of tive (5) days of enforcement activity being executed in the Boston AOR from August 9. 2010 to August 13.2010.
Phase 1: August 9. 20 I0: Operational briefing at 0900 hours at the StratTord County Superior Court, 259 County Fann Road, Dover, NH. All officers participating in the operation will attend the pre-operational briefing.
Phase II: August 9, 2010 to August 13.2010. Officers from the Boston FOTs will be deployed to Dover. NH to initiate aiTcsts.
Phase III: August 17, 20 I0: If deemed necessary. the Boston ICE OPA will issue a press release following the completion of the operation once approved by the FOD.
C) Tasks
I. Fugitive Operations Support Center (FOSC): A copy of the Operational Plan and target list has been sent to the FOSC and HQ NFOP via submission to the HQ Fug Ops Mailbox. Submissions must include the Operational Plan, Signed FOD Signature Page, Target List. and Personnel breakdown, along with any additional attachments as necessary.
2. The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC): Is available 24 hours a day, seven clays a week and can provide support to Fugitive Operations Teams conducting operations. It is recommended that you provide all officers/agents pmticipating in the operation the contact number for the l.ESC.
7 La\\ Enforcement Sensitive-Official Use Only
ll 'uming: Thi~ tlomme11t i1 l'S(I ISSIF/£01/FOR OFFICII/. l 'SE 0\/ l" (li/IFOliO). It coJIIoms mfcnmattwttlttll llt.t.l ' he <!.wmptfrom pubht reL£.1se under th~ l·rc<·dom u! fn/imllullcm ~crt) C.SC 552! Itt• to h~ <'Ofllmlfed. srored. handled IJ"<IIIfllltll'"tf clt.ltrthured. und
d1.1posed q{m accordwlfi! 11'1111 nt/,\ pol1cy relmmg m fOl '(} 11!/0rlllu/lo/1 WI{/'·' 11111 tube reLEAsed to the pu/1/te 111 !11/wr p~rsomud who du
not Item! u mlid "need·to·kllllw"' "uluwt pnor approra/ ofem wulwn:,•cl I 1/IS o/fh tal So portion ofthi.f rt•port 1iwultl he fumished tn 1111• media. either in ll"ritlen or r<'fillrl/ilrm.
Revised 07/ 19/2010

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 11 of 143
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations
Detention Operations Coordination Center within the Boston AOR,

D) Safety and Logistics
Mandatory Element: Safety is paramount. Ofticers will not engage in high/lowspeed vehicle pursuits. All participating officers will be fully equipped with both deadly and non-deadly force weapons. service-issued firearms and personal body armor.
I. Beyond identifying themselves verbally as law enforcement officers/agents. ERO enforcement personnel must utilize law enforcement identifiers, such as necJ.. badges, belt badges, and outer garments affixed with ICE identifiers. In order to ensure uniformity, if utilized during enforcement operations, outer garments must be prominently a nixed with both the words ··ICE" and --Police."
2. No training will be necessary prior to this operation.
3. Primary processing location: All detainees will be processed at the Strafford County Superior Court. 259 County Farm Road. Dover. NH utilizing the ICE Mobile Processing Unit..
a. Secondary detention and processing site(s) to be determined as needed.
b. The SDDO \\ill coordinate requests for additional staff to support the enforcement operation. Requests will be made through the Operations AFOD with concurrence from the Boston FOD.

4. Logistics.

a.

not be required for the

operation. In the event that the need arises to utilize lodging and

per diem. it will be funded at the . . level.

b. No health & safety inspecti on required for any facility or equipment being utilized for this operation.

c. No contracts need to be reevaluated.

8 Law Enforcement Sensitivc-Officialllsc Only
II amillff: Thi.< tlocumt!lll il L \ CL ISS/Fli·DIIFOR OFF/("! II. CSE 0 ,\L} ( l F()( DJ. /1 comann mformtllwnllldfm,n l>t• <".templjrom puh/1< reLI:As< tmda ''"' f·uednm of /tl{iumalto/1 lei (5 I \.( 5511. It is to />,• colllmlll!d swr.-d. handlt·d. tmmmwt>d th.lll'li>lllt•d and dllf){)Jed ofmaaordcmci! lltlh UH::; pD/ICI relatm)l 10 f()( (} m/mlllclllnll and II not u• hf rel.t.A.1ed 111 th, pu/11/c or other pa.l(ltmelu fw do llollta\'c" mlul "llt"Ctf·IIJ·kfloll" withour (11'1111 "Jipmml nf,m awhrm=~tl DIIS o/.fi<~•tl ,Vo porlitm o.ftlti.\ rl!port should bt•Jumi.lht•dltlthe flll!liiu. l!ither in wrillt•n tlf ••t•rlml form.
Revised 07I 19/20 I 0

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 12 of 143
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations
5. Removal dl011s: It is the intent of the FOD to expeditiously remove all ICE fugitive aliens and non-fugitive aliens from the United States. The below actions have been performed to facilitate this objective:
a. Once arrested, all detainees will be processed utilizing the mobile processing unit at the Strafford County Superior Court, 259 County Farm Road, Dover. NIL All files will be reviewed by the Fug Ops Team Leader/SDDO for legal sufficiency prior to the alien being transferred to an appropriate detention facility.
b. Each operational team has been instructed to secure any and all legally issued identity documents for all anestees who will require a travel document for removal. All teams will make every legal effort to secure these documents prior to departing the arrest location. Obtaining these documents at the time of arrest will greatly decrease time spent in detention.
c. When appJopriate, a form of alternative detention can be utilized if authorized by supervisory personnel.
E) General Reporting Requirements
L. Daily Reports: Submitted to the AFOD and IIQ NFOP via the IIQ Fug Ops Mailbox utilizing the l IQ approved Fugitive Operations Daily Report spreadsheet.
Via/Transmission: E-mail (llQDRO. FUGOPS) Due: 2400 daily Period Covered: That day 's 24-hour period (0001-2400 hours)
2. Weekly Reports: Standard HQ FUGOPS reporting via the Fugitive Case Management System (FCMS).
3. Significant Event Notification (SEN): A SEN I Significant Incident Report (SIR) I Significant Proposed Enforcement Activity Report (SPEAR) will only need to be submitted if events or incidences occur that waJTant their generation in accordance with established policy and procedures.
4. Report Fom1at: At the conclusion of field operations the Team Leaders will ensure that the Command Center and Processing Teams properly update FCMS with all arrests by Close of Rusiness (COB) each day.
9
Lmv Enforcement Sensitive-Official l lse Only
lf "uming: Tlti\ tffiCUmMt i~ l \'CI. ISS/FlED!!FOR OFF/("/11 l 'Sf 0\/ J' ( {'IJF{)t "0). /1 <"llll/<11115 ll!(ormallolltlt.l/ "''~' he exemptfrom puh/1, r.-1 /: ·h• unJcr tit.? freedom tl//nform<!II0/1 Act 15 l ,\ ( 55.'J !lt.\lo he comru/1.1 ;tnrt:d Jwndt.:d trmz.<mllf<'d dmnhu/t•d. and
Llr~pMed o( maccorclance Willi /J/1.\ JHI/tc\ relallltR ro FOUJ 111/illllltll/1111 and I.SIWI tube rtL/; 1~..:<1 10 rile public or atht•r p..:rsonnd "hu do 1101 han· o •·altd '"n<.'ed-to-knuw" wllho/lli)!"/111" upproml ofwtwllhrm;.-,1UHS <!lfinal ,\"11 portion oj 1/ti> repor/ \hfllllll /),,[11mi.\hetl to /he media. l'illt£'r in wrillen or l"l:rbalform.
Revised 07/ 19/2010

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 13 of 143
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations
5. A/S Notes: NS notes will only need to be submitted if events or
incidences occur that warrant their generation in accordance with established policy and procedures. F) After Action Reporting Requirements I. Initial after action conferences will be conducted as follows:
a. Key operational personnel involved in the tina! Phase(s) of the
enforcement operation wit! be held on August 13, 2010 at the surrender site. 2. Format: The fom1at for issues will be: a. Topic b. Discussion c. Recommendation(s) 3. Formal after action report: A memorandum of results will be generated and forwarded to the FOO for review as necessary. 4. Boston lCE OPA will coordinate with the foOD and generate a press release upon completion of the operation as necessary. G) Command and Control 1. Primary means of communication will be via radio, telephone and E-mail.
10 Law Enforcement Sensitive-Official Use Only
II ·aming- Tlt/1 dllctlllli'tll i.1 ( liVCIASS/FIF.D/IFOR OFFICI~~- USE 0/\'/. Y (U!/F0£!0). It ,-<mtmnl ~t!}im11o/lfm that mu1 hi! ~.<emptji·om puhl"· r<'f 1·. !.1.: 1111d<!r th~ l·n•ednm nl fnjor/11<111011 Act (5 (,__\( ·. 55!) It ts 111 foe contmlh•d, \lnrt'd, illlmih·cl. tronsmllll!d, d1vtnb111ed, and
dr~posed 0/111 accordance 11'11/i VIIS polsq n!latmg to rOCD 11!/omwtwllwuf 1.1 11111to /i(• rl'l.h lsecf flitlie publrc or other personnelll'ha do
1101 lut••· a 1',t/1d "11e~d·to-~11m•·" ll'lthow prior approml ofun autlwn:t•d OilS offinal No fltlflitlllllf'llli.l' report ,\ llllufd befumi;hetl to the me!lltt. ••ill11•r i11 wrilleu ttr •·erhttf jnrm.
R~.:vised 07/19/2010

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 14 of 143
Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations

APPROVING OFFICIAL

Bruce E. Chadbourne Field Otlice Director Boston Field Office

ATTACHMENTS: (If applicable) Attachment 1: Operational Support Attachment 2: CPS Contact List Attachment 3: Supporting Agency Contact Inf01mation Attachment 4: Other than normal operational hour· s justitication Attachment 5: Cost Estimate for HQ requested funds Attachment 6: Complete Target List
DISTRIBUTION: HQNFOP FOSC FOD DFOD Operations AFOD DOCC
11 Law Enforcement Sensitive-Official Use Only
Waming: This document i.\ UNCLASSIFIEDI FOR OFFICI. IL USE ONL !' (U!IFOUO). lr cor11u 111s in.formalion rfwr may b~ ..·.w:mpt.f(om puhlic r<!Ui.-lse under rlu: Fre.:dmu o.fln.forma/lo/1 Acr (5 U.S. C. 551) /r is 10 he nmrrolll.'d. swred. handlod, transmirred. d1stnhured, cmd dtsposed o(111accordauce n 11/i OilS policy relming 10 FOUU mjomuuion ami1S nor 10 be rdE:lsed ro 1/u: public or orher personnel " lw do not hm·e a \'U!Jd "need-Jo-knaw" u•irbou1prior opproml ~fan alllhori=t!d V IIS o_(llcial. No portion ofthis report should be.furni.,heil fl1/lte media. eirlter in wrilfen 11r \'erbal.fnrm.
Revised 07I 1912010

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 15 of 143
Exhibit C

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 16 of 143

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELOY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, u.s. Immigration and customs Enforcement,
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER
TIMOTHY STEVENS Pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, declare as follows: 1. I am a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer in the Manchester, New Hampshire, Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) , United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security,
1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 17 of 143
and have been in that position since September of 2010. Prior to my current position, I was a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer from September 2008 to September 2010 in Boston, Massachusetts. Manchester is a sub-office of ERO's Boston, Massachusetts field office. I make this declaration based upon my review and my staff's review of administrative alien files and other ICE records sources officially available to me.
2. Included in my official duties as a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer is the administrative supervision of aliens under docket control of the Manchester, New Hampshire, ERO office who are subject to administratively final orders of removal, but who, as a matter of administrative discretion, have been conditionally placed upon an administrative Order of Supervision and remain in a non-detained status pending removal from the United States.
3. In June 2010, in response to the existence of a number of Indonesian aliens who were subject to final administrative orders of removal and were at large in New Hampshire, a former ERO Field Office Director communicated with a spokesperson for this Indonesian community.
4. That communication proposed that if members of this Indonesian population with no criminal history, who were not human rights persecutors and who presented no national
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 18 of 143
security concerns would surrender themselves to ICE officers before August 15, 2010, ICE would be favorably disposed to according such aliens an initial 90-day administrative stay of removal in connection with a more formal administrative consideration and adjudication of each alien's submission of a Form I-246 Application for Stay of Removal.
5. Arrangements were completed, and at the end of August and into the first week of September 2010, ICE ERO officers set up an ICE mobile processing center in a Dover, New Hampshire, parking lot for a week, to receive Indonesian respondents who wanted to avail themselves of the opportunity to surrender to ICE supervision. I believe the plan initially was referred to within ICE as "Operation New Hampshire," though it possibly was also referred to later as "Operation Indonesian Surrender."
6. My understanding, at that time, was that the parties regarded the operation as a mutually beneficial proposition, inasmuch as it provided a process for the affected aliens to request and receive official dispositions of their respective requests for stays of execution of their removal orders, and allowed ICE to maintain administrative supervision of the aliens' locations and to require periodic reporting back to ICE. Indonesian surrenderees whose stay requests were granted became eligible to apply for work authorization during the periods of the stays that were
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 19 of 143
granted, pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 274a.12{c) (18), and if such employment authorization were granted, an employment authorization document would be issued, pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 274a.l3(b). In addition, aliens who were granted stays, placed under an administrative Order of Supervision, and complied with the conditions, were relieved of the prospect of unexpected arrest by ICE during their periods of authorized stay.
7. I personally participated with the team of officers at the August-September 2010, Dover, New Hampshire, surrender operation. The originally-intended surrender deadline for the operation was August 15, 2010, but the operation did not actually commence until the week beginning August 30, 2010. There were some additional respondents who came to ICE after that date, but who were nonetheless processed by ICE along with the rest of the surrender group, as late as October 27, 2010.
8. Although the processing of those Indonesian respondents to the June 2010 ICE communication was an organized event, the ultimate adjudication of the submitted stay applications was no different than for other applicants who might file a Form I-246 Application for Stay of Removal with ICE. That is to say, such applications are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of administrative discretion, and if a stay is granted it is for a specific
4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 20 of 143
period of time, as communicated in the written notice of granted stay that ICE provides to the stay applicant. What was different was the ICE forbearance of any enforcement action, for 90 days, of any alien that appeared and surrendered to ICE supervision. In other words, any of the Indonesian aliens with final orders of removal who were within the June 2010 guidelines that were communicated to the community spokesperson and who surrendered to ICE during the specified period were not taken into custody for removal from the United States on the spot, but instead were assured of 90 days forbearance in order to submit a formal Application for Stay of Removal within that period.
9. My staff and I have reviewed the ICE administrative files relating to the Indonesian aliens who surrendered to ICE supervision under the operation. Based upon that review, I can report that 91 Indonesians surrendered to ICE supervision during the event.
10. Of those 91 total cases, 58 cases were granted stays of removal, and 32 cases were denied stays of removal.
11. Of the 32 cases where removal stays were denied, 12 of those departed the United States under orders of removal, in a non-detained status.
12. In 19 of the 32 cases where stays were denied, the aliens failed to report periodically to ICE as directed by the release conditions of their respective Orders of
5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 21 of 143
Supervision. They currently remain fugitives-at-large pursuant to their removal orders.
13. Of the 58 cases in which stays were initially granted, the stay periods' duration were for various finite periods, reflecting the case-by-case circumstances. Five of those 58 aliens who initially were granted stays later were removed from the United States when ERO denied subsequent stay requests. No stay grant, then or subsequently, was for any open-ended or indefinite period of time.
14. Of the 53 remaining aliens whose stays were initially granted, nine failed to comply with reporting conditions, and so became fugitives from supervision and from their final orders of removal.
15. Of the total population of the 91 aliens who surrendered to ICE supervision, my review of the relating files indicates that only two aliens ever filed motions seeking to reopen their removal orders following the conclusion of the operation. These motions were filed on September 21, 2017, by named plaintiffs Heru Kurniawan and Patty Deetje.
16. I have been provided the names of 13 aliens, whom I understand to now be named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and as to whom I understand it has been alleged that each surrendered to ICE supervision during or in connection with
6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 22 of 143
the August-September 2010 operation. The 13 aliens whose names I have been provided are:
Devitri, Lia Grasje, Eva Kaloh, Syane Landa, John Lumangkun, Meldy Lumingkewas, Martin Lumingkewas, Meivie Rombot, Terry Setiawan, Agus Sombah, Freddy Sombah, Poppy Kurniawan, Heru Deetje, Patty 17. Upon review of the files relating to these 13 aliens, I can report that the following persons in fact did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation: Lia Devitri Agus Setiawan Martin Lumingkewas Meivie Lumingkewas 18. Lia Devitri did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010.She
7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 23 of 143
instead was apprehended by an ICE Fugitive Operations Team at her Winchendon, Massachusetts residence on May 11, 2010, outside the specified dates of the operation.
19. Agus Setiawan did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. He instead was apprehended by an ICE Fugitive Operations Team at his Winchendon, Massachusetts residence on May 11, 2010, outside the specified dates of the operation.
20. Martin Lumingkewas did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. He was not the subject of a final administrative order of removal at that time, which precluded him from participating in the program.
21. Meivie Lumingkewas did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. She was not the subject of a final administrative order of removal at that time, which precluded her from participating in the surrender program.
22. Additionally, I have been provided the names of 11 more aliens, whom I understand to have been added as plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and as to whom I understand it has been alleged that each surrendered to ICE supervision during or in connection with the August-September 2010 operation. These additional 11 aliens whose names I have been provided are:
8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 24 of 143
Antouw, Roy Walandow, Debby Budhidardjo, Arnold Budhihardjo, virake Eman, Michael Rimper, Hesti Mambo, Greace a/k/a Rawung, Greace Mambo, Sonny Panjaitan, Eddy Sinaga, Linaria Pentury, Christian 23. Upon review of the files relating to these 11 aliens, I can report that the following persons in fact did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation: Hesti Rimper Michael Eman Eddy Panjaitan Linaria Sinaga 24. Hesti Rimper did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. She instead was apprehended by an ICE Fugitive Operations Team at her Dover, New Hampshire residence on May 20, 2010, outside the specified dates of the operation.
9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 25 of 143
25. Michael Eman did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. He instead was apprehended by an ICE Fugitive Operations Team at his Dover, New Hampshire residence on May 20, 2010, outside the specified dates of the operation.
26. Eddy Panjaitan did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. He was not the subject of a final administrative order of removal at that time, which precluded him from participating in the program.
27. Linaria Sinaga did not surrender to ICE supervision during or in connection with the operation in 2010. She was not the subject of a final administrative order of removal at that time, which precluded her from participating in the program.
28. In my tenure as a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer stationed at the Manchester, New Hampshire, ICE office, I have never encountered any ICE stay of removal granted to any alien that did not have a stated date on which the stay terminated.
29. In my review of the stays granted for those aliens who surrendered to ICE supervision during the operation in 2010, I have discovered no ICE stay of removal granted to any alien that did not have a stated termination date of the stay.
10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 26 of 143 30. Based upon my supervisory experience in the
Manchester, New Hampshire, ICE office regarding the operation in 2010 and the processing of respondents, their orders of supervision, and the related adjudications of stay requests, it is my understanding and belief that no representations or assurances of entitlements to future grants of ICE stays of removal were ever made to any of the 91 Indonesian aliens who initially surrendered to ICE supervision, beyond the assurance of an initial 90-day de facto stay of removal to allow for the filing with ICE of a Form I-246 Application for Stay of Removal.
31. Except for Terry Rombot, none of the 24 named plaintiffs identified in Paragraphs 16 and 20 above is currently detained by ICE.
11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 27 of 143 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing l S true and correct.
Executed on: October 2, 2017
~ Timothy Stevens Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Depar tment of Homeland Security Manchester, New Hampshire
12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 28 of 143
Exhibit D

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 29 of 143

DECLARATION OF DEPORTATION OFFICER Michael Petterson

Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Michael Petterson, a Deportation Officer at the Burlington, Massachusetts, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department ofHomeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1.

I am a Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs United States Department ofHomeland Security (ICE-DHS). I

Enforcement, have served in

this

position since January 25, 2015 and my office is located in Burlington, MA. My

responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance ofalien registration files

currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge ofthis case

based on my review ofthe Enforce and Alien Removal Module.

2.

OBitiunnreSlirenapgrytteosmnh,boMewrAi9n,,gI2Ci0nE1te7no,dftfheidceedbweepliotahwrtiun-lriteshtiefrrdtoymin(3dt0hiv)eiddUaunyaisltewwdaitSshtiaantisertlsriunwceittethidcinktoestirsxetatyunrd(n6a0tno)

the days

from the date the instruction was issued.

Subject Name File Number

: Agus Setiawan
:~889

I declare under penalty ofpetjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on:
Date:/O·J -d.u/7

H.~ Signature:
Michael Petterson Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department ofHomeland Security Burlington, MA

Scanned by CamScanner

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 30 of 143
Exhibit E

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 31 of 143

DECLARATION OF DEPORTATION OFFICER Michael Petterson

Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Michael Petterson, a Deportation Officer at the Burlington, Massachusetts, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICE-DHS). I have served in this position since January 25,2015 and my office is located in Burlington, MA. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance ofalien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge ofthis case based on my review ofthe Enforce and Alien Removal Module.
2. On September 9, 2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Burlington, MA, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued.

Subject Name : Lia DEVITRI

FileNwnber

:~815

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on:
Date: /() , _;2 _c9tJ/7

Signatmej_~
Michael Petterson Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Burlington, MA

Scanned by CamScanner

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 32 of 143
Exhibit F

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 33 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION Ai~D DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deport~ltion Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportalion Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Secmity (ICEDES). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my ofli.ce is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration fi le and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/0112017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an
itinerary showing intended depruture from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the inst11.1ction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Ponloh. Lastly, lh~ instructions were confmned to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/ 11 /2017, the below-listed indjvidual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE

office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United

States on 10/10/2017 at 1320 homs. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is

09/08/20 170

I

Subject Name

RoyANTOUW

~

File Number

~967

!'rI

I~

r:

I

I declare under penalty of perjmy that the foregoing is tme and cmrect.

d h Signatut~:

Timothy Stevens~"'\ ./
Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Department ofHomeland Secutity
Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 34 of 143
Exhibit G

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 35 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746,1, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Depotiation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Depmtation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files cunently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to retum to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confitmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

Subject Name File Number

SyaneKALOH A~345

I declare under penalty of petjury that the foregoing is hue and conect.

Executed on: Date:

SEP Zfl 2017

Signahrre•c(0
Timothy Steven;\ ,/ Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department ofHomeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 36 of 143
Exhibit H

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 37 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory
Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ofli.ce, Depmiment of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervjsory Detention & Depottation Officer with U.S. IIJU1Ugration and
Custom s Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my oftice is located in
Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files cunently maintained by ICE-DHS. SpecificaJly, I have
knowledge of this case based on my review ofthe alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contruned therein .

2. On 08/01/20 17, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date tbe instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be tmderstood by the individual without any questions regarding their intetpretation.

3. On 09/08/20 17, the below-listed indiv idual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE offic.e with airLine tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/04/2017 at 1320 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 09/07/20 17.

Subject Name File Number

Arnold BUDIHARDJO A~205

I declare under penalty of per.jury that the foregoing i s ru4 e~nc dect.

:~:;-: { ~--/ Executed on: '':·.' ·· 1

7-- Date:

'" ' ,J
pr: ~) ( • n q'i '?lf
o.i L,i !, ··' i.til

Signature:

'/ ~~-\...l

Timothy Stevens Supervisory Detention and Deporta ti on Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Depa11ment of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 38 of 143
Exhibit I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 39 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS

Pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my ofiice is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration fi les cun·ently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DRS records contained therein.

2. On 08/0112017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States witbin sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instn1ctions were translated and commmricated to the individual in the Indonesian language hy Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/08/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/04/2017 at 1320 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 09/07/2017.

Subject Name File Number

Viral{e BUDIHARD.JO ~206

I declare under penalty of peijmy that the foregoing is tme and correct.

Executed on: Date:

.(

•;

l r

,

".t ;

•1·.1.1·

I''!'.: :;'1r

a / - / Signature:

'-....._
Timothy Stevens '·,···- ·~,.\.

../ ,,

Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 40 of 143
Exhibit J

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 41 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pmsuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the ~fanchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Depottation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDJ IS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instmcted to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language hy Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their intetpretation.

3. On 09/06/2017, the below-listed individual repot1ed to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/05/2017 at 2150 hours. The date ofpurchase listed on the tickets is unknown.

Subject Name File Number

Michael EMAN

A

916

I declare under penalty ofpe1jwy that the foregoing is true and conect.

Executed 0. n .

.tJ'

!r.:..

')
1

';J.. <·'\

·? f\'l'j
'.-·.; !

Date:

c;r ? Signature:

Timothy Stevens Supervisoty Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 42 of 143
Exhibit K

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 43 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as fo1lows:

1. I am a Supetvisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department ofHomeland Security (ICEDHS). I have served in tllis position since August, 2008 and my of-fice is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files cutTently maintained by IGE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien regish·ation fil e and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinermy showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instmction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be w1dcrstood by the individual without any questions regm·ding their interpretation.

Subject Name

Eva GRASJE

File Number

13 289

I

~

I declare under penalty of pe1jUiy that the foregoing is true and correct.

I

\
!

Executed on:

Date:

Signature:

Timothy Stevens
Supervisory Detention and Deportati.on Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 44 of 143
Exhibit L

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 45 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Depmtment of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows :

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enfm·cement, United States Deprutment of Homeland Security (lCEDHS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my ofl:ice is located in Manchester, Nl-1.. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-D.HS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration fi le and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instTUction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the inst:m.ctions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/06/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerruy showing intended deparhue from the United States on 09/27/2017 at 0920 hours. The date ofpurchase listed on the tickets is 09/05/2017.

Subject Name File Number

Hent KURNIAWAN A

I declare under penaJty ofpetjury that the foregoing is true and con·ect.

Executed on:

Date:

Signature:

Timothy Stevens Superviso1y Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

9/5/2 C: 7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS DocumeIntinte3ra7ry-:2JakaFrtailed 10/03/17 Page 46 of 143
C(( z_?/ 17 6 )20

Jakarta
Sep 27, 2017 - Sep 28, 2017

Itinerary# 7293603851041

Important Information
• Proof of citizenship is required for international travel. Be sure to bring all necessary documentation (e.g. passport, visa, transit permit). To learn more, visit our Visa and Passport page •

Boston (BOS) ~ Jakarta (CGK)
Sep 27, 2017 • Sep 28, 2017 , 2 one way tickets

CONFIRMED All Nippon Airways K3QCZJ Orbitz.com Booking ID K3QCZJ

Your reservation Is booked and confirmed. There is no need to call us to reconfirm this reservation.

Price Summary

Traveler Information
•dl•iii 'K:umiawan
Adult

No frequent flyer details provided

Ticket# 2058692923397

Traveler 1: Adult
.. Flight
Taxes & Fees Traveler 2: Adult

$492.61 $416.00
$76.61 $492.61

;Q~tje diCine Patty ;. Ad~lt

No frequent flyer details provided

Ticket#
2058692923398

* Seat assignments, special meals, frequent flyer point awards and special
assistance requests should be confirmed directly with the airline.

Flight

$416.00

Taxes & Fees

... .... .........

......... .. . ..

Total:

$76.61
$985.22

All prices quoted in US dollars.

Sep 27, 2017- Departure 2 s tops

Total travel time: 27 h 35m · · ·· ·- ... ·
Additional Flight Services

ANAl

Boston

Chicago

2h44m , · ·

BOS 9:20am

ORD 11:04am

Terminal B

Terminal 1

. •

All Nippon Airways 7481 Operated by UNITED AIRLINES
Economy I Coach (S) I Seat 23E, 23F I Confirm or change seats ; i

with the airline•

The alrtlne may charge additional fees Open s in a new window. for checked baggage or other optional services.

Layover:
······· .. ,

1

h .1..1...m

Chicago

Tokyo

13h 25m

ORO 12:15pm

NRT 3:40pm

Terminal1

+1 day

AI\JAI

Terminal 1

All Nippon Airways 7009 Operated by UNITED AIRLINES

Economy f Coach (S) 1Seat 408, 40C I Confirm or change seats .

with the airline"

ANAl
Tokyo

Jakarta

Layover: 2 h 25m 7h 50m

h t tps:/lwww.orbl tz.com/itinerary-print? trip id=bf4376ff-b475-4039-89ef-4 7d8e4647909&ilineraryNumber=729360385104 1&s topResponslve=true

1/2

9!5120 7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Documeltnintem3r7y:-2JakaFrtailed 10/03/17

NRT 6:05pm

CGK 11:55pm

Terminal1

Terminal2

(Arrives on Sep 28,

2017)

All Nippon Altways 835
Economy I Coach (S) I Seat 19B, 19C J Confirm or change seats ·
with the airline*

Page 47 of 143

Airline Rules & Regulations

•

•

• Please read the complete penalty rules for changes and cancellations Opens in a new window. applicable to this fare.

• Please read important information regarding airline liability limitations

Opens in a new window..

I

r J

I

Need help with your reseiVation?

~

I

• Visit our Customer Support page. • Call Orbitz customer care at 844-663~2266

I

For faster service, mention itinerary #7293603851041

I
!

1

:1

I!

j
'I
hUps:/fwww.orbltz.com/itinerary-prlnl?trlpid=bf4376ff-b475-4039-89el-47d8e46479G9&itinemryNumber=7293603851041 &stopResponsive=true

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 48 of 143
Exhibit M

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 49 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY ST.BVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Depottation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement offtce, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:
1. I am a Superviso1y Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Depmtment of Homeland Security (ICEDHS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration fi les currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to retum to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended depruture from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these inshuctions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the in:;tmct:ions were confinned to be i.lllclerstood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

Subject Name File Number

JohnLONDA

A

I 796

I declare under penalty of petjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: Date:

l')nr1· r,,,. "'
•1!1•. •1.r

I)
;••

, ~

! ~\ •

s~nnc-d~-· -

.\

/

Timothy Stevens

Supervisory Detention and Deportation Offtcer

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Department of Homeland Security

Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 50 of 143
Exhibit N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 51 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Depo1tation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Depmtation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Depa1tment ofHomeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files cunently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review ofthe alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and conununicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instr uctions were confirmed to be.unclerstood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

Subject Name File Number

Meldy LUMANGKUN A- 2 90

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: Date:

Signature:
Timothy Stevens Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 52 of 143
Exhibit O

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 53 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority o£28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervismy Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ofiice, Deprutment of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as fo llows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration flies culTently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration fa.Je and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended depatture from the United States within sixty (60) days fi·om the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and conmmnicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

Subject Name File Number

Martin LUMINGKEWAS

A

~ 848

I declare under penalty of pe1jmy that the foregoing is true and conect.

Executed on: SEP Z.u 2fJ11

Signalure:Q~~---
'\
Timothy Stevens ·· Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department ofHomeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 54 of 143
Exhibit P

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 55 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Depmtation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Depattment of Homeland Security
("ICE"), declare as follows:
1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in
Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of
alien registration fi les cunently maintained by ICE-DRS. Specifically, I have lmowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerruy showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and conununicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by ReveTend Sanma Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confinned to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

Subject Name File Number

Meivie LUM1NGKEWAS ~333

I declare under penalty of petjury that the fmegoing is tJ.ue and conect.

Executed on:

-~7 Signature:

Timothy Stevens

/

Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer

U.S. hnmigration and Customs Enforcement

Depattment of Homeland Security

Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 56 of 143
Exhibit Q

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 57 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS

Pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1.746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervis01y Detention & Deportation Officer \vith U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDHS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended depaliure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Tndonesiao language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their 1nterpretation.

3. On 09/06/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/05/2017 at 0620 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 09/06/20 17 .

Subject Name File Number

Greace MAMBO

A

•589

I declare under penalty ofpelj ury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on:
Date: ;; ;~ ? ;~ :; /.i.l1'/

Signature:

.~

~ T1mothy Stevens -~---.

/
·.

Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S . Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 58 of 143
Exhibit R

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 59 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICE-
DRS). I have setved in this positjon since August, 2008 and my oftice is located in Manchester, NI-l. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of
alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have
knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the
Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days
from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Tndooesianlanguage by
Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood
by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/06/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/05/2017 at 0620 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 0910612017.

Subject Name
.File Number

Sonny MAMBO

A

581

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forego ing is true and conect.

Executed on: Date:

Signat~e: <(/-;;

Timothy Stevens

\

·

Supervisory Detention and Deporlation Officer

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Department of Homeland Security

Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 60 of 143
Exhibit S

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 61 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S .C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Secmity ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, N.H. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/0112017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended depruture fi:om the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their intetpretation.

3. On 09/08/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/07/2017 at 0555 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 09/07/2017.

Subject Name File Number

Eddy PANJAITAN

A

3 536

I declare under penalty of perjUiy that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on:

Signature:

Timothy St.evens Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enfo rcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 62 of 143
Exhibit T

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 63 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS

Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Depmiation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security (''ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Depmtation Officer with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files cunently maintained by ICE-DRS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review ofthe alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/0112017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instmctions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by
Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instmctions were confirmed to be tmderstood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/06/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 09/27/2017 at 0920 hours. The date ofpmchase listed on the tickets is 09/05/2017.

Subject Name File Number

Deetje PATTY

A

'203

I declare under penalty of pe1jury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on:

Date:

Signature:

Timothy Stevens Supervismy Detention and Depmiation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department ofHomeland Security Manchester, NH

915/2(; 7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Documelntlnter3aJ7Y-: 2JakaFrtailed 10/03/17 Page 64 of 143
112?/17 6 )ZCJ

Jakarta
Sep 27,2017- Sep 28,2017

Itinerary# 7293603851041

Important Information
• Proof of citizenship is required for international travel. Be sure to bring all necessary documentation (e.g. passport, visa, transit pennlt). To learn more, visit our Visa and Passport page •

Boston (BOS) --+ Jakarta (CGK)
Sep 27, 2017- Sep 28, 2017 , 2 one way tickets

CONFIRMED All Nippon Airways K3QCZJ Orbitz.com Booking ID K3QCZJ

Your reservation Is booked and confirmed. There Is no need to call us to reconfirm this reservation.

Price Summary

: Traveler Information
· ~H~i~i<liiiliawan
.·' 'Adult

No frequent flyer details provided

Ticket# 2058692923397

< ;l)e~tje di~ne Patty
· icl~u

<.,;No frequent flyer details provided

Ticket# 2058692923398

~ Seat assignments, special meals, frequent flyer point awards and special assistance requests should be confirmed directly with the airline.

Total: $985.22
All prices quoted in US dollars.

Sep 27, 2017- Departure 2 stops

Total travel time: 27 h 35 m

Additional Flight Services

ANAl

Boston

Chicago

2h44m

BOS 9:20am

ORO 11:04am

Terminal B

Termina11

• , •

All Nippon Airways 7481 Operated by UNITED AIRUNES
Economy I Coach (S) I Seat 23E, 23F I Confirm or change seats : •

with the airline*

.. . .. ............... , ,,,
. L~¥.?v.er: .1 h11..m

The airline may charge additional fees Opens in a new window. for cheeked baggage or other optional services.

Chicago

Tokyo

13 h 25m

ORO 12:15pm

NRT 3:40pm

Terminal1

+1 day

ANAl

Terminal1

All Nippon Airways 7009 Operated by UNITED AIRUNES

Economy I Coach (S) I Seat 408, 40C I Confirm or change seats •

with the airline*

..
Layover: 2 h 25 m

ANAl
Tokyo

Jakarta

7h50m

https://www.orbitz.com/itinerary-pri nt?lrlpid=bf4376ff-b475-4039-89ef-47d8e4647909&itineraJYNumber-7293603851 04 1&stopResponsive=true

1/2

f)!5J20 7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Documelntinte3ra7l)'-:2JakaFrtailed 10/03/17

NRT 6:05pm

CGK 11:55pm

Terminal 1

Terminal 2

(Arrives on Sap 28,

2017) All Nippon AiiW3ys 835

Economy I Coach (S) I Seat 198, 19C I Confirm or change seats . with the airline*

Page 65 of 143

Airline Rules & Regulations

•

• Please read the complete penalty rules for changes and cancellations Opens In a new window. applicable to this fare.
• Please read important information regarding airline liability limitations Opens in a new winclow••

Need help with your reservation?
• Visit our Customer Support page. • Call Orbitz customer care at a44-663·2266 • For faster service, mention itinflrary #7293603851 041

https://www.orbitz.com!ltlr1erary~print?tripid=bf43761f-b475-4039..S9ef·47d8e4647909&illnararyNumber=7293603851 041 &stopResponslve=true

212

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 66 of 143
Exhibit U

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 67 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION Al\JD DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority o£28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory
Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of
alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have
knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration fi le and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the
Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure fi·om the United States within sixty (60) days
from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were
translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/1112017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 10/1112017 at 1320 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 09/07/2017.

Subject Name File Number

Christian PENTURY

A

'220

1 declare under penalty of petjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on:
Date:

j
....

.~..

'

'

~ I
;_ ...

1j' J_.~.'iJ'(

Signature:

Timothy Stevens Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department ofHomeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 68 of 143
Exhibit V

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 69 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Sup ervisory Detention and Dep01iation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Im.mjg:ration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.
2. On 09/05/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (3 0) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

Subject Name File Number

Hesti RIMPER

A

~ 915

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tru.e and correct.

Executed on: SEP Z97.017
Date:

Signature:
"'--··--. ~
Timothy Stevens Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 70 of 143
Exhibit W

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 71 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pw'Suant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDRS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review ofthe alien registration file and the
applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended depatt ure from the United States within sixty (60) days
from the date the instruction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/08/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended depatture from the United States on 10/07/2017 at 0555 hours. The date ofpurchase listed on the tickets is
09/07/201 7.

Subject Narne File Number

Linaria SINAGA

A

i 537

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct.

Executed on: Date:

<:k2; Signature:

Timothy Stevens
Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 72 of 143
Exhibit X

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 73 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory
Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE»), declare as follows:

1. I am a Supervisory Detention & Depm1ation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDHS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files cunently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to return to the Manchester. NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days
from the date the instmction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend ~andl'a Pontoh . Lastly, the im:tructions were confim1ed to be understood
by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/0 l/20 17, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 09/27/2017 at 0900 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is 08/27/2017.

Subject Name FileNmnber

Freddy SOMBAH A-601

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is hue and correct.

z Executed on: r;ul ~: ?Hr!
D a te :

Signature:

<~

Timothy Stevens

'\...

Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Department of Homeland Security

Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 74 of 143

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 75 of 143

Print Window

Case 1:17-cv-11842-P·rluBooSage.Dspoarecluilhmlumebnattte3rie7s f-o2r mosFt riolnesdum1er0el/e0ct3r( /17 Page 76 of 143

td certain snaking malerials calried on yeur person.

'

Certain items are required to be carried wilh yott <>11boar<llhe,ain::rnft. For e;.:ample, spare lithium batleries for por!able aledrnnic dowiCB5, cigarette Ji£jlltefS and &-Cigarettes musf be removed from chedreii orgate-dlecked baggage and canfed onboard the alrtrnft However, e-cigarettes mey

.,... -,;;&"'"'~'-~"'""'"=~"''~ ~ ~ ~· -.,. If
v r - f.'~

. ''""""""""~ _.T l!)~m ical _ -, · ~ . .,;&

- del'i~may .-_ -

ilem"'s"s'itll!ol;oo

e.-airMlineope"m'h"lr"fu'ri<lfo.rmall-ononuseof,5Ulihdmti'CM.

•

1. . .
\.,J

I

EJectronic lidte!s are NOT TRANSFERABLE. Tickets wilh nonrestrictNe fares are valid for one

1 I
!

year from rniginal date of issue. Jfyou have questions oegardin9 our refund policy. please visit

I

\WJW.aa.cof't\I!Efunds.

I

To change yc,ur reseN31i£1n, pi~ G>D 1-8110--433---7300 and refer lo ~'<JUt rerord lt1cator.

I

Checi0n lines wlll vary by depaffllre locatl"on. In rnrler fa determine the -time you need !D cli=k--iR

I

al the airport. pl~>aSe visitw,.n.a;;.comlo:Urporte"')sctf<lions. If you are traveling lntematklnaUy, please ensure that you nave the propel' dorumentation. All lleo:es5ary tra\lel documeots for !h" countries baing ulsiled llJUSl be preMntsd at atrport oohedo:-ln.

I

Check with ltlamns<Jiate of!ho>sa. cnun!tieski deterrnine1ha documarrts Jequired. Additional infonnalion can be futl!ld atlnlemalio~al Travel.

I I

w.. place ltmilaliooo on cheeked bagg<:~ge end boxalil on some filghls to Mexico, lhe Carlbbea/l
and"la6nAmerica. To c:oofum whalyou can tak.snnyourjr:>umey please see8agg-age lfmitations.

Nr transposlaijan on American Airlines and lha American Ea±Jl"'- carriers® is subject to American'"
ro!lditions- of cani<:~ge..

i
I
I

HOnCE OF INCORPORATED TERMS OF CONTRACT

!
i

Air Tr;;nsportl1ion, whether it is damesli<".;or inlema!ianal {indudiug domestiG pw1ions of international journeys), is stJbject to lhe in!lNidual terms otltle transporting airQlJl'\era, w!lich O'!t~

1

herein ltlCQIPOrated by referenre. .and msda part oflhro. r:on~ractof caniage. Other carriers-en

which yell! may be licketed may have differeotcorxlilloos of caniage. Jntem311ona1 air

·

'

tnmsportaficn, in<'.;ludillg the carriets Uabilily, may also be governed by applicable tariffs Olllile wilil !he u.s. ood other governments allcf by the Warnaw Convention, as <~mended, or bv the Molllreat

II

Convention. lncnrporated lenns may im:lilrle, bul <tre not restricted to: 1. Rules aml limlts £Ill Habl!i!yforpersonallnj!l!}' or-death, 2. Rules andnmn.: oniiabi!itv for baggage, inclllding fragile cw

,.

perishable goods, and wailability of excess v;;dustioo ch<:~rges, 3. Claim rasltid!ons, lndudln.\1 Ume periods Jn whidt passengers must 61" a claim orlltlng an ~lion againsllhe alr canier, 4. Rlgbls
0111he air catTier to chang~u.rms of the controct; 5.. Rule:s on reronlirma~on ot resentalioi\S, chedt--in lilll!!!l and refusal to cany, S. Rights of!he air earlierand limits an llabiliry tor rle!a!l' "'

i

failure ra perform seJVice, inctucfitl!l schedW.. dtanges, Sllhs~fulion or a!terrn~le Wr caniels ar

aJrcra.ft and rerouting.

You can oblain additional infomra!iorl on items 1 l!u'O(lgh S <tbove at any U.S. locaUon wilere 1M

transporllng lransporting

all' air

caniets catrie.-'s

Uckels are sold. You h 1erms at1ts airport and

ave ciiy

the right"' ~ect ticket offices. You

the run text of e"'Ch also have the right,

upon

request, In receJve (tiee of ch>lrge) 1he fail text of !he appl<cable terms lneorporaie<J by '"fereMe

from eadt of the !nmsportilllJ air 031liers. Jnform!!tlon on ordertng tl19 full text of each air ca!Jil!(s

I

lerms Is avaJable al ai"Jy U.S.l/llialiM where lh& air caoiets tickels are sold or you ean cllc!r on

me- CornJilioo3 of Carri;oge buttonbelo•v.

If you h-ave a ctJSlomar $eN'Il:6 io:sve, please ConlaciAA. NOTICE: This em<lll and any informa~OJl, files or allacl!menlli :are for the excl!Jsive and t:enfideali<d use ofllle intended recipien!{s).. This ~ contains canfiden!ial and proptle1ary informalion ofAmerican Ailfmes (sucl! as customer <~od busi~ess dala) lhat may no! be read. sean::lled, di.s1ribuled or o!herwi!le u'M.d hy anyone oJber lfJBn the intemled redplent If yoo areno! an Intended reclpien!, please dG Ollt read, distribllffi, oc take action In reliance upon ws message. If you suspec::t you have ri>Geived lilis emall in error, please notify the sender <md promptly delete this message <:~nd fui <tl;lachments from your cornp~!el: ~~RID: 2713S<!1521422719D117355UO

I
I

!

313

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 77 of 143
Exhibit Y

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 78 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Irrunigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Seculity ("ICE"), declare as fo llows:

I. I am a SupeL"visory Detention & Depmtation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (ICEDHS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in
Manchester, NI-l. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of
alien regisfl'ation files cunently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of this case based on my review of the alien registration flle and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual was instructed to retum to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instmction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend Sandra Pontoh. Lastly, U1e instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their interpretation.

3. On 09/0112017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 09/27/2017 at 0900 hours. The date of purchase listed on the tickets is

I
I

08/27/20 17.

Subject Name File Number

Poppy SOMBAH

A

1600

I declare under penalty of pe1jury that the foregoing is true and colTect.

Executed on: Date:

Signature:

~~a·~

Timothy Stevens

-

Supervisory Detention and Dep01tation Officer

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Department of Homeland SecLU·ity

Manchester, NH

' B/31/20U
:.M Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Gmail

Gmall - F. SOMBAH 09/27/17 Itinerary
Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17

Page 79 of 143

F. SOMBAH 09/27/171tinerary
am~<americanairflnes@aa.oom>
To: ~

Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 7:53 Ptv1

ReseNalions 1 A/l.dvenlage Accourt 1 Fare Sales &Offers
AA Record Locator: QCREKB Status: On Request

American Airlines~'-..

~~ ~

Carrier
-
' -~
AMERICAN AIRLINES
~-
- AMERICAN AIRIJNES
~-
AMERICAN AIRUNES OPERATED BY JAPAN AIRI.I!'JES

Flight Number

DepartJng

City

Date&

Time

j 2459 BOS Boston

Sep27, 2017
09:00AM

A rri ving

City

Time

Booking Code
I

Sep27,

ORO

Chicago

20f7

0

10:50AM

Meals
..
Food for Purchase

153
J

ORO Chicago

I Sep27,
2017

NRT Tokyo

12:45PM

Sep 28, 2017
03:55PM

8499

NRT Tol(yo
-

Sap 28, 2017
06:15PM

CGKJakarta

Scp29, 2017
12:05AM

Lunch 0
Dinner
·-

0

Meal

I

Refreshments

.

rrave!er !nform.:Jt !on
Passen ger
!iR:Edoy ~OMBAH .· ·/..·
~OP.~Y SOMBAH
FREDDY SOMBAH POPPY SOMBAH
FREDDY SOMBAH
POPPY SOMBAH

C ICISS
Economy Economy Economy
Economy
!Economy Economy

...
16A 168 23C 238
I

.... Seat Assignment
-

Traveling passengers may check in and obtain boarding passes for
of the flight lime online at AA.com by using www.aa.com/checkin or airport. Check-in options may be found at www.aa.com/options. For

U.S. domestic electronic tickets within 24 hours at a Self-Service Check-In machine at the information regarding American Airlines

checked baggage policies, please visitwww.aa.com/baggageinfo.

Travelers must present a government-issue security screening checkpoint

photo

ID

with

eit h e r

a

boa rdi ng

pass

or

a

priority

verification

card

at

the

rahPeorlrcemievaieasvpeletairamgeuemeto,aemgnmodabtteeiocnrwtnfelwoigrtwhitfhi.tceadaaert.eitcoaqoniulmssiroeaadfrnefdlfilsgieguhnhbt ttjceeahrcnattdhntoegceofclsnhig,tahacnctlgiticneiknf.oofIornnmrmotahratdeitoeioFnrnl iti.gonhtcthhSeetcGaktauatsefsNligoahtnitfd'iscTasittmiaotenusss,ssgeeaacttreicoh,noaorrndeaeth.peaInrwtouwrrdewea.ranatdo.co m

https://mall.googie.com/maillu/Onui=2&ik=f7e45e7c85&jsver=EtwGX3tyASk.en.&vicVFp!&msg= 15e261d1ae7525b6&search=inbox&slml=15e261d1a... 1/2

~ 8/31/2017

Print W indow
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 80 of 143

ex

Subje<t Fwd: Your trip confirmation-QCREKB 27SEP --------------·-----·----------- -·- - -
~ro m:
To:
_ _ Dat~edn~clay, August 30, 20!:~ 9:03:3!_AM ~!_------------·------------·-----------·-·------------

GJ This me.~age contains blocked images. Show images or Always show images

Sent from rny iPhane Begin forwarded message:

Hello Freddy Sombahl

Issued: Aug 27,2017

Record locator: QCREKB
View your trip

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

BOS
9:00AM
Boston
Ame-rican Airlines 2459

ORD
10:50 AM
Chicago O'hare

ORO
12:45 PM
Chicago O'ha1'8
American Airlines 153

NRT
3:55PM
Tokyo Narita

Seats: f6A, 16B Class: Economy (0) Meals: Food For Purchase
Seats: ~.l;lli
Class: Economy (0) Meals: LIUlchldinner

Thursday, September 28, 2017

NRT

CGK

6:15PM

12:05 AM

Tokyo Narila

Jabrta

American Airlines 8499 OPERATEO BY JAPAN AIRLINES.

Seats: - , -
Class: Economy (0) Meals: Mealslrefteshmenl

1/3

• 8/3'11201'7

Prir~tWimtow

Case 1:17-cv-11842-Pr lBugSlJage,Dspaorecluilhmiumebnattier3ie7s r-o2rmosFt ciolnesudm!1!r0al/a0ct13i; /17 Page 81 of 143

11f cMain smd<illg malarial!; carJierl .!Ill YPW" pers~m.

'

E1ectronio:: tickets are NOT TRANSFERABLE Th:ke!s with nrmreWicti\le faras are valid for one year from origil\al d<~~& or issue. rryou ltave questjons regarding our refund policy. please Visit W\IIW,<Iacomlrefunds. Ta change ymrr resentalior>, please caU 1-801}-.43.3-7300 and refer 1o 1'001' record locator. CheciHn lines will vary by depal1ttre lo<:ation_ In order Jo determine !he time you need to chec):;.!n at !he allpOrt, please visitw'""'-"a..comfalrpo,...e.:pe~t«Mn_~.
lfyou :are lraveli,.g inlematiooaUy, please ensure thatyau have tOO proper doctlmel)!ation. All necessa<y ~ravel docurneniS for the countries beingllislted must be presented at a~rl checlc--in
Chack with tile. co[lSU(ate of these- counliies lo defarmlna the doouments requirsd. Addlll!mal
infurmalion can be b.md atlntemo!ional TraV&l. We placelimillllionsonchecked bagga_ge and boxes on some !lights to Me:t;ioo. the ca.ubh~ and latin America. To confirm what yoo um take on yourjourney please see Baggage Umit;rth""Air trenspcrtatlon on American AirllnBS and lha Am.-"'""ican Eagle carriers® is subject to Amefican'<O c•><lditio= of carriage.-
NoncE OF INCORPORATED TERIIIS OF CONTRACT
i\11" Transpooa!lon, whether ltls dnrne;;tic or irrtemafional (lncludl!lg domestic pOJtions of international joumeys), is Stlbject to the indMduallesrns cif Jhe transporting alr .::arrien;, ...mlr.h arc; hereilllnoo!pornted by reference and !Mde! part of t:le cofiii:l;ocl;of c:aniage. Other canie!s on whtch you may be licketed may have dilfe~erll CJOnd"rfi.Ms of carriage. lntema!ional air lrnnsportaliQn, Including the canfu~s Nablll!y, may a!so he g<nremed by applicable tamfs on fil"' with !lle U.S. and 01!\er governments and by!he Warsaw D:lllvenlion, as a:mended, or ilV !he MoJllmal Corwenlion.. ln""'{lorated lerrns mall illduda, bul are not leSbit:ted to: 1. Rlllas and llmJls on liability for petSOil2l iniiiiY or.death, 2. Rllles and limits Grlliabilitv for- baggage, im:Wdirlg li"agile c;r
pE>/i!;hable goods, and availability of e:a;es.s valuation ch11rges, 3. Cfalm reslrictians, lnGllldJng lime
periods In wJtich passengen;: must file a clalm Ol'bri!l!J-an action a_gainstlha aif cauil>r, 4. Ri!Jil!s on Ute air canier 1o d1angeterms of !he confract, 5. Rules on reconfirmalion or resen~atioru;, dled<:--irl times and refusal to carry. 6. Rights of the ain::anierMil fmils.-<m ffabili!y for delav ~>r fe~ure Ia perform s.:Mce, including sclledule dlanges:,subs~lli!Ion ofallflmate lllr.r:aniern QT airct3ftand rerouting.
You ca(l oh!ain additional infotrna!Wn on ilems 11hraugh 6 above at any U.S.Iocatior< where !he llanspoltlog air c:aniet'-S liekels are snld.. You have Ule right to Inspeclliw rull text of each !ransporting air r:arrier's lerms atm. airport and ci{y 6cket offices. You also have the right, upon 1equest. to receive (IT= of dtarye) the full leldof1he appf<eable 1erms fncrur=at<'<l by rele WJICI'! irom e~ of lhe lrallSpOrtlng airc:anie-rs. Information on orderiiJg !he lidJ l<lldof eadl air carrie(s
terms is -avai.able. at -any U.S.Ior::atiM wllare !he. aif c:anie!'s tielcels are sold or you can click on
!he Ctmdilions of Caniage butloo below. If you have a customer serJio::e. is;s!H>, pl~ase Conla~tAA..
NOTICE: This email and aey inforrnalion, fi!O'!S or allachments are fortfle exehrs:ive and
conlideolialuse of !he inlellded redpienl(s}. ThJs message. ronlains CMfide,ntia[ and pmpriefaoy infolm!ltion ofAmerican Ai~in""' (sud! as cu~ and business dala) thatma.y nol be- read. searched. r:Hs.lribl.lted or oth"f"Wisa Used by anyoll<':! olbN lhan tfJe lntarided reclp!l!nt Ifyou am no! an intended recipient, pleased~ not read, dis!ribule, or take ao:;jign in relirul<:!i! upgrJ flljs me-ss.age. If you Sllspect you have received Jh'IS""mail in error, p!aase no!lfy lhesender aru1 prompliy-de4e1e !his message and its attachments finm y1lur comp~ !JRIO: 27135B1521422719011735500

3/3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 82 of 143
Exhibit Z

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 83 of 143

DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OFFICER TIMOTHY STEVENS
Pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Timothy Stevens, a Supervisory Detention and Dep01tation Officer at the Manchester, New Hampshire, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"), declare as follows:

I. I am a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security (JCEDHS). I have served in this position since August, 2008 and my office is located in Manchester, NH. My responsibilities include the knowledge and maintenance of alien registration files currently maintained by ICE-DHS. Specifically, I have knowledge of thi s case based on my review of the alien registration file and the applicable DHS records contained therein.

2. On 08/01/2017, the below-listed individual. was instructed to return to the Manchester, NH, ICE office within thirty (30) days with airline tickets and an itinerary showing intended departure from the United States within sixty (60) days from the date the instmction was issued. Additionally, these instructions were translated and communicated to the individual in the Indonesian language by Reverend s~mdra Pontoh. Lastly, the instructions were confirmed to be understood by the individual without any questions regarding their intei1Jretation.

3. On 09/ 11/2017, the below-listed individual reported to the Manchester, NH ICE office with airline tickets and itinerary showing intended departure from the United States on 1011012017 at 1320 hours. The date ofpurchase listed on the tickets is 09/08/2017 .

Subject Narne File Number

Debby WALAN DOW A~966

I declare under penalty of perj ury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: Date:

~ -- Signature: ~-\

Timothy Stevens

Supervis01y Detention and Deportation Officer

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Department of Homeland Security

Manchester, NH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 84 of 143
Exhibit AA

_,/ --~~.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 85 of 143

/. U.S. Depnrttnent of Homeland Security Immir,tJ!ion :L'Id Customs Enforcement

FileNo Date: 09/03/2010

on

, you were ordered:

{~ate of mol or.ler)

r J

C.O.B Indonesia

( J Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April I, l997. [ x] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

Because the fmmigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal has not effected your deportation orremoval during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under the following conditions:

[ X) That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of he Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[X] Thnt upon request of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, you appear for medical opsychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government

[X] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and nctivities and such other

'Wfn~///(/ff':lrs information as the lmmigratbn and Customs Enforcement 0 tice of Detention and R~~val considers nppropriate.

[X] That you do not travel outside the ew En landStates

without first having notified the fmmigration

(Specify geographic limits, if an

anct Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Remo\ Ioffice of the dates and places of such proposed travel.

[Xj That you fum ish written notice to Immigrationand Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and ru..,...,.'O'll1nr"AA\i'i'"tt.,...,...

employment within 48 hours of such

·

·'

XJ That you report in person on
mless you are granted written pe

X] Other: Bring an Interpreter in VOllf n ative languag-e See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Corttinut on sepontc sheet ifrequir•d)

ffici•l)
~~~~~--~A~u~~~~N~(

Alien's Acknowledgm ent of Conditions of Rele<lSe under an Order of Supervision

hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the

language) the contents of

'W is order, a ~J.of whi has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the tenns of this.xder may subject me to a

mJ, t.lctcnti pro· 'cution.

~

~ \..._[T1 "
(Si::nJIII fC or alien)

09103/2010

I

I

I
~

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 86 of 143

J. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement
Alien's Name
Alien's Signature

for Fonn: I-2208 09/03/2010
(picture)

Alien's Telephone Number (if any) PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

RIGHT INDEX P

II
,!
!i
!I
I
i
~

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03r/17 lepPnratmgcenl 8or7i-loomfd1an4d3Security
Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Executive Park Dr.
Burlington, MA 01805
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

RoyANTOUW (

V

C/0 Williflm A. Halm,_!j!_q.____ _________ _ __

101 Tremont St. Suite #1106

Bosto11, MA 02108

OCT 2 2 2012

Dear MR. ANTOUW,

This is in response to the Application for Stay ofDeportation or Removal which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and I-246 application and determined that there are extraordinaty circwnstances which warrant approval ofyom request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hcreby·granted for a temporary period until November 21,2013. The granting of this request does not confer any immigration status or benefi! to you.

CC: William Hahn, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 88 of 143
£flforccmem (llld Deporratioll Opemtions Boston Fio?ld Office
U.S. Dcp~1·tment of Homela nd Security l0 New England Executive Park Burlington, Mt\ 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs· Enforcement
February 17,2014
RoyANTOUW C/0 Willian A. Hahn, Esquire Law Offices of Hahn and Matkov 101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, MA 021 08
RE: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Roy Antouw, • • • • • •
Dear Mr..Antouw,
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 26, 2013.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting ofsuch discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until February 16, 2015. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Si~r~
Chris Cronen (A) Deputy Field Officer Director Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/1c.'n7forcePmaengl aend8R9emoofva1l O4p3erations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Deparlment ofHomeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Roy Antouw C/o William A. Hahn
101 Tremont St ., Suite 1106
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Application for a
Roy Antouw;

March 3, 2015

Dear Mr. Antouw:
This letter is in response to your I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 22,2015.
Prosecutorial discretio11 is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement
agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement.
These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 2, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

f"s Gallagher
Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 90 of 143
Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department ofHomeland Security I000 District Avenue
Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Roy Antouw C/o William A. Hahn) Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, M.A.. 02108
Re: Application for a Roy Antouw,

March 18, 2016

Dear Mr. Antouw:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fonn 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16,2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removaL Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is
hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the
status of your case will be reviewed for a detenninati.on of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/1:n7jorcePmeangt ae11d9l1lemoofva1l O4p3e./'{//ions
Bosloo Ficici O.flir:e
or U.S. Depnrtment Hom~land Security
lOOO District Avenue Burlington., MA 01803

· U.S. Immigration

t

.t: and Customs

~~<4.vn s..."~"' Enforcen1ent

Roy Antouw C/o William A. Hahn, Esq . 36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02 108
Re: Application fo~ortation or Removal Roy Antouw, ~

February 8, 2017

Dear Mr. Antouw:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form l-246, Application for a· Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 17,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the Jaw against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement
agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement.
These discretionary decisions take on clifferent forms and include stays of dep ortation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priori ties, namely national secmity, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed yom fi le, as well as the factors addressed in the Application f9r a Stay of
Deportation or Removal, and I h ave dete1mined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently walTanted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

@) of-oV hr .

'-/t/ftr-

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/1!7forcePmean/ga1e1d9Re2moovfal1O4pe3ralions
DOSIOII Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Sl'.Curity J000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Roy Antouw C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a
Roy Antouw,

ttation or Removal

September 18, 2017

Dear Mt·. Antouw:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement OCE) on September 15, 20 17.
Prosecutorial d iscretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to whal degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, h as prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of dep01tation or removal.
Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances,
both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determjned that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently wananted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www.lce.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 93 of 143
Exhibit BB

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 94 of 143
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement
File
Date: 09/03/2{)10

[ ] [ x]

Excluded or deported ·Removed pursuant to

pursuant to proceedings commenced proceedings commenced on or after

prior to Aprill,

April 1997.

1,

1997.

Because the Immigration period prescribed by law,

aint idsCorudsetoremdsthEantfyoorcuebmeepnltaOcefdficuenodefrDseutpeenrtivoinsioanndanRdempeorvmailttheadstnoobteefaftelcatregdeyWouldredrethpeorftoaltlioown ionrgrecmoonvdaitlidonusri:ng

the

[

X]

That you appear in Office ofDetention

npnedrsRonematotvhael,tifmoreidanedntpifliaccaetiospneacnifdiefdo,rudpeopnoretaactbio. nanodr

every request removal..

of

be

Immigration

and

Customs

Enforcement

[X]

That upon request examination-at the

ofthe Immigration and Customs Enforcement expense of the United States Government

Office

of

Detention

and

Removal,

you

appear

for

medical

cpsychiatric

lXJ

Tinhfoatmy1oautiopnroavsidtheeinlmfomrmigartiaotnbnunadnedrCouasthtoambsouEtnfyoorucremnaetniotnOaflfiitcye,

circumstances, habits, associations, and activities ofDetention and Removal considers appropriate.

and

sucb

other

[X]

That y-on do not travel outside the New England States

and

Customs

Enforcement

Office

(Speei(y geographic limits, ifMy)
ofDetention and Rem~yal

off!.ce

for more than 48 hours without first having notified t11e Immigration oftp~ dates and places ofsuch prcpQSed travel.

(X]

That you funUsh written notice to bnmigrationand employment within 48 hours of such change.

Customs

Enforcement ·

Office

of

Detention

and

Removal

of

any

change

of

residence

or

·

[X] That you report in unless you are granted

person written

on November I 01b permission to report on

at 9:00am another date.

to this Service office at: 811 Canal StreeJ, Manchester New Hamps!Jire

tX) TI1at you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal in obtaining any necessary travel donments. [X] Other: Bring an interpreter ill your native la11guqge

/r<ft/"' 0 _; 11/ ( ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Co111inue on~paratesheet ifrequired) &, 7-'/-pYO f t&fm""J

0n 7'._&- Z.,Gtt>.

s/eA Cr~cJt.J.tJ iJ

A

(r>;(,)QJ

AJien1s Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

bereby acknowledge that his order, a co which
inc, detent'

I have (read) (had h een given to

interpreted and explained to me me. !understand that failure to

in the comply

with

the

tenns

language} the co.qtents of ofthirordermay subject me to a

09/03/2010
Date

Fom• 1-220B (Rev. 8114/07)N

·' . .

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 95 of 143

U.S. Department ofHomeland Security and Customs Enforcement
Alien's
M.. ., Signahm

for Form: I-220B (picture)

Alien's Telephone Number (ifany) PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

RIGJIT INDEX

Signature

Title
Deportation Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/17T:;nfoPrceamgenel a9nd6Roemfo1va4l O3perations
Jost011 Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Secu1·ity 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement

Arnold BUDIHARDJO C/0 William A. Hahn ESQ. 101 Tremont St. Ste. 1106 Boston, MA 021 08

RE: -

r a Stay of Deportation or Removal

February 17,2014

Dear Mr. BUDIHARDJO:
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 26,2013.
After careful consideration of all the factors· addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is wan1illted in thls case. Theryt~, your application tor a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved until February lt'.J, ~015. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal oi·der will be executed at that time.
Sincerely, Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

y I j

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03f/17·cemPeantgaend9R7emoovfal1O4pe3rations
' n Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security I0 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

j!

Arnold Budihardjo
C/o William Hahn, Esq. 10l Tremont St, Suite 1106
Boston, MA. 02108

February l3, 2015

1

~

9

,~
l

I,
!!
I!

II

RE: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal

I

Arnold Budihardjo. -

Dear Mr. Budih ardjo,

This is in response to your 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed
with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 22, 2015.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this
case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a
period of one year, until Febmary 12, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be
reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 98 of 143

!\mold Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromtield Strecl, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02 108
R.e: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Arnold Budihardjo,

!:"ufiwame;/1 mrd lli•momi Opuution, Ho.<wn Field Ojjic11
l;.s. Dcp:1nment uf ll<Jurclnn ll :\t•cu rity lOOO Dbtri~l .'\\'l'UU~ Burlington. MA 0 I!103
U.s. .T.mrrn•grati•on
and Customs Enforcement
March 18,20 16

Dear Mr. Budihardjo:
This Jetter is in response to the filing of Form I-246. Arplication for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, wi.th U.S. [mmigralion and Cusloms Enforcement (ICE) on February 16, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, "like any other law enforcement agency, hos pt·osecutorial discretion und may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionmy decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive ru1d negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national securily, public safety, and border s~curity.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in yolll' Application fo r a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granti ng of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, yolli" Application for a Stay of Depo rtation or Remova l is hereby approved for a pc1iod of one year, unti I March 17, 2017. At the e.nd of thut period, the status of your case wi ll be reviewed lor a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 99 of 143

f

Enforcement and Removal Opermions

I

Boston Field Office

I

U.S. Dcpa .-tmcnt ofliomcland Security

1000 District Avenue

Burlington, MA Ol803
U.S. Immigration and Customs

I
I

Enforcement

February 26, 2016

I

Arnold Budibardjo

~

C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.

~

I!

36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500

I!

Boston, MA 021 08

l

Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal

~

Arnold Budihardjo; ~

I

Dear Mr. Budihardjo:

~ I

I

This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or

l

Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on February 16, 2016.

I

Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to

what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law

enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of

I
I

enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of

I

deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis after considering the

!

totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's

I!

enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security. M1:er careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your. Application for a Stay of

Ill·
I~! ·

Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is

warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is

hereby approved until February 25,2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will

be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17EnforPceamgenet a1nd0R0emoofv(1l/ O4p3erations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Depa timenl or Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Arnold Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn, Esquire 36 Bromfield St. Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a St~ion or Removal Arnold Budihardjo, ~

February 8, 2017

Dear Mr. Budihardjo:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fom1 I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 3, 2017.
Prosecutmial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of · Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

--1 Sincerely,

. ~

,vf,v (If.)()p -

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/1E7nforcPemaegnet an1d0R1emoo1f•a1l O4p3erations
JJoslon Field Office

U.S. Depa rtment of H omeland Se.cu1·ifv

1000 District Avenu~

•

Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Iln1nigration and Customs Enforce1nent

Arnold Budihardjo
C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a Stay of Arnold Budihmjo,

or Removal

September 18, 2017

Dear Mr. Budihardjo:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, with U.S.lnunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September 15,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a pariicular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These cliscretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal.
Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances,
both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national
security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of
Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 102 of 143
Enfo~cement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Securi ty I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01&03
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Amold Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Sta~ or Removal
A:mold Budihardjo, . . . - I

March 18,2016

Dear Mr. Budihardjo:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fonn I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16,2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fom1s and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Dep01tation or Removal, it has been detetmined that the granting of such discretionary relief is wananted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Depottation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 17,2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 103 of 143
Exhibit CC

/

-- .. - -~-- - --
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 104 of 143

l
l

i

11 i•Ul•n..Sm..iiD~•eap•tia•orn•tmm.ed.n•et.wofr.tHo•no.um.Ee•l®a•n~.d.Se.~e•cu•mr.it.y ........................................<>.rd~

6 ~'1) 1/;W{t N'Dle; . d 0£

)0

ot;n~(d>' you
{rlate G I onlcr)

w

e

r

e

or1~.ted_:

FileNo~
Date: 09/03/2010 · C.O.B Indonesia

I
I
I
i
l
l
i
I
\

1I:~XeeJTercaT]iTemiTOhoannhxThudadphffaaaosthflamtpCetoiyraytcrmyyouittueeon[[homusyspauaxouetcotootefri]fdi]IuonpuminomDborrnEtnarRsenoemenwpxadivaeEtqsposceiimithubntgledntthtuyefahrhoettwidoarisrenevoaltietrraieinvnicIe4ndoowtdmfeext8nafopeoml,p.pntimnehaorihmeudertnuonednisnrgiadRutesosostsItrerputneimaiCOosiodomtmcoraunmfier0edmfftotst\ieeutitttvctg.hordohonaeae.remtednaIlpdlhpo,nedUttsu~rieitfrfuoor~mhEnC(oDSnsocniNiarpunuetieaelteegaiaseteftc<dyadohntrwenidoUfneaordyntiSamJcntdnuttEgibe~CittoogepsaiomboonfnsutlpgniEueegaacsrecratsctnalanponpooaenthfGldctymimnaiodoecsOoCcodrmeplnsRuicevfmdueSedrfEeeeaiicsimttnnncrmnstnuia,onfcgeadnfeiitommeotsfeenodifavdrodsctoaseecfany,ooOrrneDlE)aumnmstdfolenpufieomfteitfoppfecoyrnineneeo,rctarnctreecvfOiotecotaiaiomrefefsnctcfDrdifihfueiooatAocepnmnhnanertrtpenedosiamoOrodntdnriRafrtlofadeirnDferott1evicoeempcnm,eeeseeAtt1rsoaoheany,9ovnpnvannh9radfrntad·ieia7il.DtlolqR4.bt.hpenueIi8laedta,tessmaehc,st1nnneootoa9dtsoousvi9bostRfroa7eosnelh.efcfawmcsaefituoaeniIolttccndmahivthsoreoRaimgnddpulese,erit,ymgoyrufosarpoinoarnuouadvstdrpsietaoaepdralhpndrectaopohptavtiefpreonviaaarnrdifirnvttgaoaieyCfetltnoLelisuocoor.hswantmtianofiondenimergdgrsdesieuccmtEoacohhnlofnefvordooIeaipmtsrtlhjsciodemdyenruecmisnrhgi:ecirnanaegtttriotoihrcne

~
t

That you report in person o lSS you are granted written pemus · .

t 9:00am ther date.

to this Service office a

I
811 Caual Stre.el, Manchester New Hampsllir

That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office Other: Bring an interpreter in vour native ltmgtwge

of Detention and Removal in obtaining any necessary trave

dooments.

See attached sheet containing other specified conditions(Cantilm~<~n s.c:panie sheet ifrequir~

.R~ Smm~ ~&mz->~ (Y,fu,. (Si cG!ICEOfficial) (Print name lUidMe~£ INS official)

1 Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Or

'-Jy acknowledge that der, a opy o hicb

1bave (read) (bad has been given to

ete

or rosecution.

minete. rpI ruentedderasntadnedxtphlaatinfaeidlutroemtoecionmthpely
". r , / ~fJi~

with

tbe

terms

der ofSupervision
of thi!olradnegrumagaey)stuhbejecc~ttmenetstooaf

_ _ -~...._;_

(S'~iJg.nlla'- t· ure o_falie_ n) _______ 09/03/2010

Dale

FOI'IIl l-220B (Rev. 8114/01)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 105 of 143

U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement

for Fonn: I-220B 09/03f2010

Alien's Sig11alure

(picture)

Alien's Telephone Nwnber (ifany)
PERSONAL REPORTRECORD

RIGI-n'INDEX

f
t i
li
ll,
t

Signature

Title
Deportatlon Officer

j'

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/17 Page 106 of 143
U.S. Dle0pENanFef.wo.rcE•ennmgt leoanBfntdHuarnoElidmnxgeRetwloeamntni,vodJvevSe\AP!eacO0rukf1rf8iDttc0yre5.

~
i
I

UaEnn.Sfd.oI·crmu~mesm toigemrnasttion

I
!
I

- - -- -- - --··--

ocr 2 2 2.ata- -·- -·------- _ f

VC1B0i/ol1'0astkTWoernieJ,WJmi'uraofdAmnilttAa0Sr.2td.H1j0oaS8hunit,eE#s1q1. 06

I
I

DTEIceAhtsniheartifcamarscocvtuMriupoesmcsorseidrrs.nomeaitBvnrarreyignebuenlcsedwpytpenie,asehoernadanwfisdoirsytdhdeaRtojioomucteuoh,nmyrattocwtihotulaveeasN.rareAlrooaapvOfnnpedptdlmiieascIprbc-aap2retteri4riooot6i1nnvo0asanf,ploD2ypor0oilfviS1ucyit3rsaao.itAyouioTnrponrhpfo.eleDifqIcgIeuamhrpetaaoimsnovrttnetiiagndftrgioeaorttoenioSrfmonttahriyainRsneoedrdmfeCRqtohuuevasemattsolottmwhvdeaoshrleeiEcsisnahnrfhweooetraerccexseobtmfrnyialfeeogendrrrdtaawniOnntiCeaythdrEyimt)fh.omer iagration

'g
I
I
I
i 1
i
f
I
~

I

I
; l

CC: William Hahn, ESQ

I
I
t
I
I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docum\ ent 37-2

Filed 10/03/17 DePpaartgmeent1o0f H7omoefla1nd4S3ecurity
Norris Cotton Federal Building 275 Chestnut Street I Room #210 Manchester, New Hampsh ire 03101

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

"'· J/;it Name:

! ·1/4_ )3 (;I h1./-//l/lb ~J ()

Dear Sir I Madame,

9_ The purpose of this letter is to inf01m you that this agency is not in possession of a valid travel document
in your case as is required by the conditions ofthe Order of Supervision issued to you on IJ (!J .- Z& It)

Accordingly, on or before SEPTEMBER 1, 2012 you are required to provide hnmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with a valid passport to facilitate travel in the event you are required to depart the United States. Failure to do so is a violation ofyour conditions of release and could result in your detention by this agency and immediate removal from the United States.

If you have any questions regarding this notice, you may contact the ICE Office in Manchester, NH @ ·

603-629- 2800. Please.have your alien registration number ready to assist the officer with the review of

specific information relative to your immigration case.

·

CC: William Hahn, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/17 Page 108 of 143
njorceme111 ancl Removal OpeJ'atiOIIS Bosto11 Field Office
U.S. Department or Homeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement

Virake BUDIHARDJO C/0 William A. Hahn ESQ.
101 Tremont St. Ste. 1106 Boston, MA 02108

RE:

Stay ofDeportation or Removal

Febnutry 17, 2014

Dear Mrs. BUDIHARDJO:

This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Novembe1· 26, 2013.

After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or

Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this

case. There~~' your application
February t9~015. At the end

for a Stay of Deportation
of tb,at period, the status

or of

Removal is hc1·eby your case will be

approved reviewed

until for a

determination ofwhether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely, Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

u ~~~~~~ !~migration Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/1Bt1OJ7u.nSrNf.loiOenrPwcgeeptaomEagnrnet,egnnMtltea1annAnt0ddo09Ef1RHx8oeeo0mfcm5uo1etvlia4vanel3dOPSafefrcikcuelDitryive

',:~::-~ ~~~-·"·-·D·-s·~*4.rC/~d

U.S. Ea-lnllcd4oCrcuesmtoemnst

\
I
I \
i
I

CV/i0rakWeiBlliuadmihHaardljmo,'-~
101 Tremont Street S11ite 1106

\
l

Bosto11, M4 02108

t

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Ms. Virake Budihardjo,

_____.- --fGTilhaesidsrewimsiistnh-ErtnehfseopErocnnefsmoeretcnotey(oI~CurEeA).~pp lRice.a.mtioo_vnafLoOr SpetaraytioofilDs eDpiovritsaitoinonofolrmRme1mgorva~tilo. nwahnicdh.was · -

eIxhtaravoerrdeivniaerwy ecdircyuomursctaansceeasnwdhIic-2h4w6 aarprapnlitcaaptipornovanald

determined that
of your request.

there

are

ggArrcaacnnottiernddgifnoogftlytah,tiaessmsatpaomyraraetrtqyeurp·eoesrftiddoidosecosrfenttowiotenclvoyenofu(e1rr2Aa)npmypoliimnctamhtisiogfnrroaftomirotnShtseatyadtaoutsfe

Removal is hereby of this letter. The or benefit to you.

,r-·
I 'l l~ Sincerely,

~\ ·

~~'-~Q-fi l. . .·'-- ----- . · /
·

..

(
·\(~t!.:

_..___.. Vincent Arch eque

--

\ 1

BOIDAmofecfsmptiticoaniegrngtromFaFftieiiDeeonllnedtdtoaOeOfnnffHdtffiioiocCcnmeeuaesDntloaidrnmeRdcsetSEomerncofuvoraricltyeOmpeenrat tions

___......-- -·

..,i-·· --·· . --- -

\
\
r--

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/17iforPceamegnet an1d1R0emoovfa1l O4p3erations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Secul'ity 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Virake Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn 101 Tremont St., Suite 1106 Boston, MA 021 08
RE: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Virake Budihardjo;

March 3, 2015

Dear Ms. Budihardjo:
Thls letter is in response to your I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. hnmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 22,2015.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a Jaw to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border secudty.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 2, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed fo r a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

fS n Gallagher
Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 111 of 143

Virake Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn. Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, St1ite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Jl•lli••• Rc: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Virake Budihardjo,

!::nji)rCi!IJU.'/11 UJJ<I Ri:1110t'Ltl l)pc·.J·afit)Jl.\'
11<~.1'/0IJ Field 0{/ir:e
:.s. I l)(•.parfnl~nt uf llillll'-'l:md :'iet·uri!y
1000 J)is•rict tWcmJc BurlingiOil. M;\ OISO.>
U.S. Imn1igration and Custon1s Enforcement
March 18, 20 16

Dear Ms. Budihardjo:
This leUer is in response to the filing of Form 1-246, Application tor a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with ent(lrcing a law to decide to \·Vhat degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any olher law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enJorcement. These discretionary decisions take on di1Terent forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform \vith ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the lhctors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discrelionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is
hereby <tpproved l(>r a period ofone year, until March 17
, 2017. At rhe end of thai period, the status ofyour case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

~~ Sincerely, Field Ot1ice Di rector

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 prPcemaegnet an1d1R2emoovfed1O4p3erations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Departme111of Homeland Security l 000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Virake Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn, Esqltire 36 Bromfield St. Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Virake Budihardjo

or Removal

February 8, 2017

Dear Mrs. Budihardjo:
This letter is in response to the filing of F01m I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 3, 2017.
Prosecutodal discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing n lnw to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a pmticular individuaL ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinaty course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decis ions are made on a case~by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances> both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement·priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

[4.) D(-cJO J-v-t'

~

C. M. Cronen

Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 113 of 143
E:t~ arcememand Removal Operations Boslon:Field Office

U.S. Ocp:~ rlmcnt uf H omcl~nd Security
I000 District Avenue
Buriington, MA 01803

t{§\, ;f~\ U.S. Inunigration

,~y.

anq Customs Enforce1nent

Virake Budihardjo C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield St., Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Virake Budihardjo,

September 18, 2017

Dear Ms. Budihardjo:
Thjs letter is in response to the t!Hng of Forn1 J-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (JCE) on September 1~, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the Jaw against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, bas prosecutodal discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Sud1 d~cisions are made o~ a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, ru1d must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety,- and border security.
l have carefully revievved your file, as well as the factors addressed i:ri the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

.:::r_~--C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 114 of 143
Exhibit DD

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 115 of 143

A-number As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the following conditions must be met by your next report in day. There will be no exceptions:
1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS OFFICE)
2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)
3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

~· Sign

Next report in Date-

ah II-L-::.':-....1,-- -

.. Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 116 of 143
\

U.S. Depa1·tment or Homeland Security

Enforcement an d Removal Office

J0 New England Executive Park Drive

.

Burlington, MA 01805

\{;:'-~"'~~trfAt)t? ,.J· /\.).~~ ~AftfJJ~.~'-·-~....

J::J

- . "0-:\'1~

U.S. Immigration
and Customs.

Enforcement ~-~~.~ ~( ~\'l,;/.i '" "-"o s.~~/

' -"-'.......--.:o·

Deetje Patty (AC/O William Hahn, l-~sq. 101 Tremont Street Suite 1106 Boston, MA 02108
Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal
Dear Ms. Deetje Patty,
This is in response to your Application for Stay ofDepmiation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of hnmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and I -246 application and determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period of twelve (12) months from the date of this letter. The granting ofthis stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

r
r)
c

Postage 1$ - - - - - - - 1 conlhed Feo

5"'

Aei\Jm Rooolpt Fee

(Endcrsomer.t A•qulrod) 1 - - - - - - - 1

:J

Postmat1< Hare

:nt erations

:::1 I C:""'""""""''
r u
:::1 ~~~~--~~----~~----~y-r-----~
::1
"! ••..,_-,·=r·.::n-.o;
:J '- ~-;.;.c · ·."!:!

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 117 of 143
Offic'e ~J Enforcement and Removal Operations
U.S. Department of Homeland Security I 0 New England Ex.ecuttve Park Burlington Massachusetts 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
December 21, 2012
DeetjePAITY(AC/0 William A. Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont St. Suite #1106 Boston, MA 02108
Re: I-246 Application for Stay ofDeportation or Removal
Dear Ms. Deetje Patty, This is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and I ~246 application and detem1ined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay ofRemoval is hereby granted for a temporary period until November 15,2013. The granting of this stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.
Sin/~;:rr.
Dorot Herrera-Niles Field Office Director Department of Homeland Security Inunigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 118 of 143
En.forct•mcm and D!'porwtion Opemtions
Boston Fit>fd q(fkl!
li.S. Dcp;H'tmcnt of Homeland Sccul'ity lO New Englnnd Exccuti,·.: Park Burlinghln, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Deetje Patty C/0 William A. Hahn, Esquire
Law Offices of Hahn and Matkov
I0 1 Tremont Street, Suite t 106
Boston, MA 021 08

Febmary 17, 20 14

RE: App lication for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Deetje Patty, A • • • •
Dear Mrs. Patty,
T his is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 26,2013.
After careil.ll consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of
Deportation or Remova l, it has been determined that the grantin g of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. There(ore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until February 16, 2015. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the re moval order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,
(Jf~ C~i~ er~nen
(A) Deputy Field Officer Director
Boston Field Office

X

APR Z8 101~

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/17 Page 119 of 143
·rjorcument and Removal Opemtions Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Securi ty I 0 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

March 3, 2015

Deetje Patty C/o William A. HalUl 101 Tremont St, Strite 1106 Boston, MA. 02108
RE: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Deetje Patty; A
Dear Mrs. Patty: This letter is in response to your I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 23, 2015. PdTabSgerohuogetecsnhrsheececepdyuod,ettsicoohsiitrcsaiierivsaoeneltnfpidosoarironnsacscadreeerrceyntmutheidtogeaoenadrcltieiiiaasvswloieton,dhnaieaassgncaactdruaiaentkstmhseeitoo-ubornasiynttya-pcdcnaoaoidrfsfntfeiafemconrbuearalamnyasgtriesewf,inxoniacerdtfymrhitcvecsiIrishCdaecaunPoraigdntlse.sidiinendncwIelCftruihoitEdnerhc,egeeolstmnirhtkdfaeeoeiynnrtscotaaitrnopnayyrfgliiocdtoayoretiulphtoairoewefsrrsetth,atloaetoniwaofdcmnieerecnceoniufldrfyomoerrrcnestcteomaaemtnmwioocevhenenanaastl.tt,.l
security, public safety, and border security.
RApcreaeefvsrtmeiieoe.rowdvcTeaaodrlhf,eeffoiroutenrlfheaocayrodseene,abstreyie,dmeoeunutrnriadnttiaeailoptteiMnporlmnoiacrfoiacnathfeilwold2nht,thehf2etoa0hrtfe1atra6ch.tteShotreAgasrryteaatmndohtdefoirnvDeega;nel~odpeoofdrordstifueantcrthihywoaontdiuliplros•ebcrrrreeiReoqeteduixom,eenstcoahtuvreftyaoelsrdrtiaeaastlutiShetsehtfaoraiyestfbtoywiymfoaauDerprr.epacpnramotseve1deawdtiinoiflnolthrboiesar
Sincerely,

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 120 of 143
En]"rci::... ..ll and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
1000 DistriclAvenue
Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Deetje Patty
C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
All•••• Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Deetje Patty,

March 18, 201.6

Dear Ms. Patty:

This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Appli.cation for a Stay of D eportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16, 2016.

Prosecutorial what degree

discretion is the to enforce the

authority of law against

an a

agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to particular individual. ICE, like any other law

enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of

enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on diff erent fonns and include stays of

deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering'the

totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's

enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of

Deportation or Removal,
warranted in this case.

it has been determined that Therefore, your Application

the fo r

granting of such discretionary relief a Stay of Deportation or Removal

is is

hereby approved for a period of one year, unti l March 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the

status of your case w ill be reviewed for a detennination of whether the removal order will be

executed at that time.

~ Sincerely, Field Office Director

www .ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 121 of 143
iiforcemeut and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Patty Deetje C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield Street, Strite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Patty Deetje ,

April25, 201 7

Dear Ms. Deetje:
TRheims olveattle, rwiisthiUn .rSe.sIpmonmsiegrtaotiothneanfidlinCgusotofmFsorEmnfoI-r2c4em6,eAntp(pICliEca)tioonnAfoprl'ila6,S2ta0y17o.f Deportation or PTdaSbgerouhogetcesnhrhseececepyduod,ettiscoohsiitcrsaiieirsvaoenelntfpidosoarironnsacscadreeerrecyntmutehidtogeaoeandrctlieiiiaasvswloieotnd,hnaieaassgncaactdruiaaentksmthseeitoo-ubronasiynttya-pcdcnaooaidrfsfntfeiafemconrbuearalamnyasgtirseewf,inxmnicaetdfymhrticevcsiIrishCdaecaunEoraigdn'tlse.siidinendncIwelCftruoihitEndrehcge, eeoltsmnirhtkdfaeeoeiynnrtstocaaitronpnayylflgiiotdcaoyoertipulhotaioreewfsrrsetth,atloetaoniwfoadcmnieercenceoniulfdrfyomoerrrnecstcoemtaeamtwonmioecvhenneanaatsl..ttl,
security, public safety, and border security.
DIsuhefpafiv0c1eitecantaitroleynfuwolrlaynRraeenmvteioedvw.aeld,TaIy1noeduArI pfhipalelvi,ceaadstiewotneerlfmloairnseatdhSetthafaaytctotohfresDgaerdapdnortreitnsasgteioodnfinsourtchRheedAmipsocpvrleaictliaoitnsioahnryefroererblyaiefSdetiasnyineodof.t
There is no appeal from this decision.
Sincerely,

~ C.M. Cronen Field Office Director

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 122 of 143
ClljuN:I!IIIMI 1111d l111mOva/ Oper/lliQit~
1Jo.1·ton Field Office
U.S. Dcp:nlmcnt Qf ll orn c!a nd S~curity I()00 District A I'CilUC Hurlinglml, MA 01803
U.S . In1migration and Custoins Enforcement

Deetje Patty 12 Winter Street Dover, NH 03820
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Deetje Patty, ~

September 11, 20 I7

Dear Ms. Patty:

TRheims olveattle,r·wiisihinU.rSe.sIpnounnsiegrtaotiothneanfidlinCgusotofmfosrEmnfoI-r2c4em6,enAtp(pIClkEa)tioonn

for a Stay of Depottation September 8, 2017 .

or

PdaTSbgeruohogecteshnrhseececepyduod,ettsicoohsiirctsaiieriasvoenletnfpidosoraironnsacscadreeerrecyntmtuheidtoegaoenadrcltieiaiiasvswloietonhd,naeiaassgncaactdruaiaentkshtmseeioto-ubrnoaisyntty-apccdnoaaoidrfsfntfeiaefmconrbureaalamnyasgtriesewf,inxonciaertdymfhritcvecsiIrish·CdeacauEnoradgin'tlse.sidiinendncwIelCftruiohitEdnrehc,egeeoltsnmirhtkfdaeeoeiynnrtscotaaitrnopncyyirgfliiodctaoyoretipulhtoaiovreefs·rr.srett,hatloeatoniwodafcmneiercecneoinufldrtyomeorrrecnstcometaeamtmnwoioecvhenneanaastltt.l.,
security, public safety, and border security.

DIsuhefapfvioceritea<n;ti~tolryenfuwolrlayrRrraeenmvtieoedwv.aeld,TayhnoeduArI fphipalelvi,ceaasdtieowtnee1llfmoairnseatdhSetthaJaaytctotohfresDgaerdapdnortreitnsasgteiodonfinsourtchhReedAiinspocpvrleaicltiaoitsnioalnr1yefroerreblyaieSdfteiasnyiteiodotf. There is no appeal fro111 this decision.

Sincerely,

C. M. Cronen ~Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 123 of 143
Exhibit EE

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 124 of 143
U.S. Department of H omeland Security lmmigration and Customs Enforcement

Fi leNo.:
Date: t71•y ,-,;1 /!6/C

Name:

On _:_hv--=~+Y-=-:1+-J.,.....,...l_O_u_·,L.'f-- , you were ordered:

(Date offinal order)

"'

DOB:

0 Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commeJJced prior to April!, 1997. Ef Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

Because ICE has not effected your depo1tation or removal during the period prescribed by Jaw, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pennitted to be at large under the following conditions:
lXI That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of ICE, for identification and for
deportation or removal.

~ That upon request of ICE, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

lXI That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other
information as ICE considers appropriate.

lXI That you do not travel outside

the State of Massachusetts

(SJl'l"i~ g~pltical Uml<s, ifeey)
having notified this ICE office of the dates and places of such proposed travel.

for more than 48 hours without fiTs!

(gl That you furnish written notice to this ICE office ofany change ofresidence or employment within 48 hours ofsuch change.

~ That you report in person on the

r It, day of J-..~,< ?01 (5 to the ICE office at:

I0 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803

unless you are granted written pe1mission to report on another date.

(gl That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement in obtaining any necessary travel documents. ~ Other: Bring with you a Photo I.D.

0 See attached sheet containing other specified conditions ccon<inucon••l•iii"'•sl><<lif req"iredl

(Sigruunre offCI! officio!)

Mark Sutton Deportation Officer
(Print name and tille or IC6 cfficial)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of R elease under an Order of Supervision

I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the

£111 f)t,

language)

the coutents of th.is order, a copy of whi9J. has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the tenus of this order may

subject me to a fine, detention · <JSeCution.

~

(D.tte)

r cnn 1-2!08 (Rov. 411/97) 1'1

/
'
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17:e ofPDtJaitgJnelion1a2n5d Roemf o1va4l 3Opermions Boston Field Office U.S. I>tpurl ment of Homcl:md Security prr 10 New England Executive Park /~-,t{' Burlington, MA o1803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

February 8, 2012

UaDEVITRI CIO William A. Halm
A- 101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106
Boston, MA. 02108
RE: Stay request,

Dear Mrs. Devitri

This is in response to your Application this office on February 8, 2012.

for

a

Stay

of

Deportation

or

Removal,

which

was

filed

with

l have reviewed discretion.

your

case

ruld

find

that

your

particular

circumstances

merit

a

favorable

exercise

of

Therefore, I hereby grant you a Stay of Removal until February 8, 2013

S ii}.Y.~rel y,

/

,\ .._.._.:G'vtc I'r\~

\; ·~o

t \., · . IT'· • . • 1\ .

., •

.

Dorothy Herrera Niles Field Office Director
Boston Field Office

I

.~

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 126 of 143
Exhibit FF

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 127 of 143

U.S. Dep.ar tment of Homeland Security

I

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

I

I

( ] Excluded or dep01ted pursuant to proceedings commenced l'rior to April I, 1997. [~ Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

I

Because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, it is

I

ordered that you be placed under supervision and pe1mitted to be at large under the following conditions:
[~ That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request oflCE, for identification and for deportation or removal.

I
r

( t ] That upon request ofiCE, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

M_vv b4. [~That you provide infonnation under oath about information as ICE considers appropriate.

your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations,
l~ ~

and activities and such other

(l-j~ llutt you do not travel outside

~~ns,.; ~ (Specify geographic limits, if any)

for more than 48 hours without first

having notified this ICE office of the dates and places of such proposed travel.

. rr- . . 8 ll ~That you furnish written notice to thisIC

offic

of

any

change

of

residence

or

employment

within

48

houUrslo~f s\ur.h

ci a,nge. <)\--

\ .

~~ ) That yo~ u report m p1e8r0so3,nuonnletshseyo

.

at I0 ·c.JO to th1s ICE office at: t &ffe\V"England EXet!uiiVe r aric, ·

are g nted written permission to report on another date.

~] assi~t~ o~b~:aining [ That you

feE in

any necessary travel documents. ...

[ ] Other:_ _;.._ __ _ __ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

i::_! See altached sheet containing other specified conditions (Cootinue on separate sheet if rcquil(;d)

ADDRESS:

--~·- ..

---

-

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

I hereby acknowledge that J have (read) (had this order, a copy of which has been given to

interpreted and explained to me me. I understand that failu re to

in the comply. with

the

tem1s

o f this

language) the contents of orde may subject me to a

fine, detention, or prosecution. _,.....- · ·

of INS official setvin: ordc:r)

f onn J-1208(Rev. 411197)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 128 of 143

-.!.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement

Continuation for Fonn: I-220B

v Allen'~
Alien's Address

(picture)

Alien's Telephone NumbCl· (if any)

RlGHT INDEX PRINT

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD
i,
f
l
0

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docum\ ent 37-2

Filed 10/03/17 Page 129 of 143
..:rhnent of Homeland Security Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Execuli\'e Park Dr.
.Bwlington, MA 01805

U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcewent .

111ichael Emnn ( C/0 William A. Halm, Esq. 101 TremontSt. Suite #1106 Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Ernan,
This is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and I-246 application. I have determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval ofyour request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay ofRemoval is hereby granted for a temporary period until November 9, 2013. The granting of tills request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

~ -- . c~. Jyr...B·(,~...· --- ~-·
),? ·t y n ra-Niles
~ Field Of.fic irector
Boston Fjeld Office I ICE-ERO
CC: William Hah11, ESQ

).(' j

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 130 of 143
llfl.torccll/en/ Clnd Deporwtiot; Opcrcf/iom 1Jost011 Field Ojjicrt
U.S. Department of Homclnnd Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlingto!l, MA 01303
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
February 17, 2014
Michael Eman C/0 Willian A Hahn, Esquire Law Offices of Hahn and Matkov 101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, MA 02108
RE: Application for a ~ation or Removal Michael Eman, ~
Dear Mr. Eman,
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 26,2013.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until February 16, 20 15. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,
~~~ Chus ~:onen
(A) Deputy Field Officer Director Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 131 of 143
Enforceme/11 1111d Ullnl(wol OpcraliOn.> iJosron field Ofjice U.S. Dcp~ rt men t of Homel~ntl Security I0 New En!;land E:-~ecutiv..: I'ark 13urlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

February 11 ,2015

Michael Eman C/o William A. Hanh, Esq.
iot Tremont St, Suite 1106
Boston, MA. 021 08
All•••• RE: Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal Michael Eman;

Dear Mr. Eman,

This with

is in response lo your U.S.Immigration and

1-246, Application for
Customs Enforcement

Stay of Deportation or Removal, (ICE) on January 26,2015.

which ·

was

fi

led

ARcpreaeefvsrtmeeiioe.rowdcvTaeoahdrlfee,offiruoetnfrlheocaayroseden,baesyreti,edoeruneumnrrdatiainetliptaoeFptnrileomibocnirafnutoaeiaolfdrlnwyftahfh1ocae0rttt,ohat2rhes0Ser1attgad6hryd.earonreAetfsimtsnDetgohdevepoaioneflrnstoyudaroctdoiuhoerfnrdtrwhieosaqrcitlurlRpeebetesiemtroifneoooxadvrre,ayaclthurSieetstelashdiyteeaafrotetuirsbtshDywoaeatafpprtymirpmoar1nuoeatrv.etciedoadnisnfeootfwrhiaisll be

Sincerely,

Sean allagher
Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 132 of 143
Enforcement and Remo1•al Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department ofll omeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Michael Eman C/o William A. Hahn, Esquire Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108

Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal

Michael Eman, A.

I

March 18, 2016

Dear Mr. Eman:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fonn 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. bnmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the attthority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 133 of 143
£fi/(Ncement aud Removal Operations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue BurlingtOn, MA 0l803
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

Michael Eman C/o Wil1iam A. Hahn, Esquire 36 Broomfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Febmary 23, 2016

Re : Application for a St~on or Removal MicbaelEman, A# - -

Dear Mr. Eman:

This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or

Removal, with U.S.lmmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on February 16, 2016.

i

ti

Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to

H

what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law

enforcem ent agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
enforcement These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the

I

totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's

I

enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

li
li

'[

After careful co nsideration of all the factors addressed in yolll' request for a Stay of Deportation

or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is wan-anted in

this case. Therefore, yow· Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved

for a period of one year, until February 22, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your

case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that

time.

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 134 of 143
Hl!furci'flll'lllaml RemowtJ O;x•ra/ion.r Hv.wm Pield ql}ice
IJ•.S. n~p~rtmcnt of llomcbnd Sccurifr 10()0 Disukt :\vcnu<.: Burlington, MA 01803
\ U.S. I1nmigration ' and Custon1s
Enforce1nent

Michael Eman C/o William A. Hahn; Esq.
36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02 l08
Re: Application for a
Michael Eman,

ttation or Removal

March 15, 2017

Dear Mr. Eman:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246. Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 23, 2017.
Prosccutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what
degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law eniorcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances,
both positive and negative, and must conform ·with ICE's entorcement priorities, namely nationnl
security, public safety, and border secm·ity.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not
sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

SIi'ncerely·..

\f\j..-L~(~if\.._..-(· ")D)rI~l./

~)fJ'\, __,:::.·: "---

'"

1 C. M. Cronen

Field Office Director

W\ VW.icc.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 135 of 143
&!forcemen/ u11d Removal Opera/ions !Joston Field Ojj7ce

U.S. Depal'tmcnt ofHomcl•lnd Sccu•·ity 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 0 1803

~~~~.
\~~~~ 't.

U.S. and

Immigration Customs

- .:....~ Enforcement

Michael Eman C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a ~ation or Removal Michael Eman, ~

September 5, 2017

Dear Mr. Eman:
This Jetter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on August 31,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with eufurcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as tbe factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Depo1iation or Removal, and I have detenui_ned that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 136 of 143
Exhibit GG

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 137 of 143

S. Department of Homeland Security

.ro:i

and Customs Enforcement

D.O.B.

C.O.B Indonesia

rxJ .:~eXeX[R[r(X]cXJ)iXaao]]OuJmdeTTTTisxTaTnehfppTehhtahnmhfiarshaa[hm[oatdce/atahttapttrsxetuitiyeyCtmcl]nyry)oopyooryoaeuIoayiooufuEmotu,bstuRimunuDtiuoxeapoomdefnrndcerpemnaruomeellointpsurbegaqepsasnvtonesdntryu~oiiwEovsaiasttdeserrhtiltettdynhtehisoaidtetoittifowenhnrhnoiownoaueinperrI,napvxfrfupncanaiIdeiopetenretu4tmdrhresltmermdiens8epeussnomoRniolgoCehasugIoannerirnenonmrtutrgatmasittaudeosoonortimitdtOtderaton:tnofois:rteteivctmfhpiemgdpuhfooaeeudWirnrlfenscawarto,VdttoensstUiEhacefriemuu~oonaioedInrncetarmnedettnCffhonie(doiytvSDemaatuaCndeipcrosstnnntdeec/ehhuiotdupcddggnetiasoSJeaemrsattYbpnNpCniyto~anbafergcltegnmetuinooat_ioeicenepwisooccufN.smosastlteennts\oautoO'eEodiimGac-msaooprydvnnefbhp~nonneoiefcsddfien\edinv'oumcaEetcglceCuoirr1Renimimsnercbf1nnudniideerf"ofltdceesas'eommmof,e~ftdrXoptfrooIrmiDe,fcotenoomr.aHnesn3vunrnemoOutdmttyaps'~at.dre)peeloOolfEepineanfnontnifnorftycfcfittvaafefte,oieeotinciaOdn.atrcscrecootieic9pAhfoiart:foefohc:ronniDm0pianucfefdfone0oarrDmeeotridRnrthdotnlersetdzem!aeoetttfmnr,eatmvpeDOtedonnAi1meea.oortcef9rmpietfnvteoyoe9iertsatcvstnio7nahr,lilea.netatahathtilIqndhone.onaa,udfdinbdsR4s1eDipt89nsRaSetoslt9enmoeea,ht7obdrtcmeaoo.veefensuRvoisfsbtacrafivoesoeeteolmacclnwfIcoliatmoasoferaiituvfngtndnmiihcaeoscdoyolhineid,ubguoRspyaentr,tuaterarodf:arosmituienni8rpdoarsdio1aoenpnttvp1pshpgahaeapoceraClandeotrvniftdaoapvaotiyrrmnrftiClaiitlgafnaoJiovuoent/enwesnresySclt.omi.0eotancrt1smnihgeesfrddeeaiascemtnirs,odcEyugoa1nncet1tvldh-rhfJaaocaioeltvuorifpIdocectrsmehunlely1/esrsdm1eciir:1onshdietoggieneamnrlrttahcreNtieeincoetownsr.
[X] Other: Rri11g an interpreter ill I'OIIr native lang}_tage [ ) See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Ccnlinuo on repara(e sheet ifrequired)

Alien's Aclmowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

Fo.-m H20B (Rev. &114/07)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 138 of 143
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement (picture) RIGHT INDEX PRINT

DATE

PERSONAL RBPORT RECORD

OFFICER

COMMENT/CHANGES

SigJ~<~ture

ITDitleeportation Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 139 of 143

I

A-numb er

I
!

•I

As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the

jII

following conditions must be inet by your next report in day. There will be no exceptions:

I

I

1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION

I

WITH TI-IE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS

:

OFFICE) ~® \tj'3)to

2)

VALID PASSPORT MANCHESTER (IF

NMOUTSTALBREESAUDBYMDITOTNEED) c TO~ ICE~

~~ J 1to 3

3) YOU ARE REQU1RED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

Sign_- '~ ---·=·_._ _ ___ ___ _

Next report in Date_

_ l~-+-!_r,+-/_fa_ rt

i

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 Page 140 of 143

I

..
'r ~ • · : ' .~.

I

i!

li.S. l>c11Prtm cn1of llomeland Security

If il

{

Enforcement and Removal Office I0 New England Executive Park Drive

{

Burlington, MA 0 1805

~~~,;~~a~~...,t~

l:~t&l)

~{-..<..i:N__o

~t'-~
_.·~

·

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

Eva Grasje C/0 Joltn Loscocco, Esq. 10 Winthrop Square Bostoll , k!A 02108

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Ms Crrasje,

I

~.

This is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was

filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and

Customs·Enforcement (ICE).

I have reviewed your and yow· son's application and detenn ined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant the approval of your and your son's request.

!
\

Accordingly, as·a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby

(

granted for a temporary period of twelve (12) months from the date of this letter. The granting of this stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

Sin/~
~/Martin ·
Acting Field Office Director Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal Operations Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-2

Filed 10/03/1E7· · P•maegnet an1d4R1emoovfal1O4p3erations

1:..

?ield Office

U.S. Departmen t of H omeland Security l0 New England Executive Parl< Burlington, MA 01803

December 8, 2014
EvaGRASJE C/0: Jolm Loscocco, Esq. 38 Adelle Drive Dover, NH 03820
RE: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
A
Dear Ms. GRASJE,
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on July 16, 2014. After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal. it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved until December 7, 2015. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/1i7nforcPemaegnetan1d4R2emoovfal1O4p3era/ions
Bcston field O,bice U.S. Department ofHomeland Security I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
January 13,2016
Eva Gra~je C/o John J. Loscocco Barker, Epstein & Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Eva Grasje,
Ms. Grasje:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fonn I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on December 29, 201 5. Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a patiicular individuaL ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
In your Application you request discretionary relief on your belief that you may be eligible for
Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA). On February 16, 2015, a federal district court in Texas granted a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the implementation of DAPA. Accordingly, ICE is precluded from exam.ining your eligibility under DAPA. However, after careful consideration of the other factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it bas been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is sufficiently warranted. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until January 1, 2017. At the end oftbat period, the status ofyour case will be reviewed for a determination ofwhether the removal order will be executed at fuat lime.
www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-2 Filed 10/03/17 -P,rcaemgeent1an4d3Reomofv1al4O3perations
ouJ·ton Field Office

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803

~~o"~'d .;I~J~l ~.~f;])

U.S. and

Immigration Customs

~~(~ Enforcement

EvaGrasje C/o John Loscocco, Esquire Barker, Epstein & Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square 211d Floor Boston, MA 02110
Re: Application f~portation or Removal
Eva Grasje, ~

February 8, 2017

Dear Ms. Grasje:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 12,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of deportation or ren10val. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not
sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

ww w. i ce.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 153
Exhibit HH

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu.\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 153
U.S. Department of H omeland Security l m,mi ~•ml1nn and Customs Enforcement

D.O.D.

C.O.B I ndonesia

[ J Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April !, 1997.
[ x] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

Because the 1mmigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal has not effected your deportation orremoval during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pennitted to be at large under the fo llowing conditions:

[X] 1JJat you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of he Immigration and Customs Enforcement Oftice ofDetention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[X] That upon request of the Immigration and 01stoms Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal, you appear for medical o psychiatric exami11ation at the expense of the United States Government.

[X] That you provide inf01mation under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and su~h other

information as the Immigratbn and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal considers appropriate.

[X] That you do not travel outside

v~~

for more than 48 hours without first having notified the Immigration

(SpecifY geographic limils, if any)

and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal office of lhe dates and places of such proposed travel.

[X) That ym1 ft1rnish wrirren notice to Immlgrationand Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal of any change ofresidence or employment within 48 hours of such change.

[X] That you report in person on Weu a1csday NovelJl ber 3'd n t 9:00am to this Service office at: 811 Cm1a/ Street, Man e/J ester New Ffampshire, unless you are granted written permission to report on another date.

[X] That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal in obtaining any necessary travel douments.

[X] Other: .Bring an interpreter in vour mll~ve la11gtwr;e

[ ] See attached sheet containing other specified. conditions(Conli.nue on sepllfUtc sheet ifrequired}

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of R elease under an Ordel' of Supervision

I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the

JangwJge) the contents of

:his order, a copy of which has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of thirorder may subject me to a

fine, det nlion, o prosecutiOn.

-~-r--·--A-'--t'~---'i~'-------------

~iflJlall.o~ of~lien}

Form 1·220B (Rev. 8/14/07)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 153
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement

Allen's Signature

(picture) RIGHT JNDEX PRINT

DATE

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

OFFICER

COMMENT/CHANGES

Title Deportation Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 153
i\s ~lgre,~d upon as pnrt ol' tht: l uclt) llC~inn Surrentkr (Jpemtinn, the !hl!,)\1iny. l'PJ id itir>n~ must he 1w~·t b\· Sl)lll' nt:.xt ri:pmt in day. lli~·rL' \\ ill h•: no <.:.\t.:q)ti un,;;
i; FlU. I-2.:Jfi RI-. ()UI~.S T H.m S IA Y OF DFPORTATlON \\ITi I Til E RH)UIRT<:i) FEES cBi iRUNGTO!'\. tvli\SS
OI FI<Ti
::'1 V;\ LIU !J;\SSPUR l !VlllSl l{J-. Sl iHtv!ITTU) lO IC! ; i\ 1!\NCIII :SlH{ {IF NOT !\ LRl:!\DY DON FJ
~>)YOU 1\RI: RH)U!R FD TO REPOR'T' ONCE EVE !{ Y 3!J DAYS (!WGINNJN(i TODAYJ UNTIL YOUR STJ.\ Y RF()Uf:Sr llr\S C!ITN ADJlJDJC;\TED.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 153

(A- . :_ -~vc; ...... \,, . .. t u .!
Syane Kaloh C/O John Loscocco, Esq. : Baker, Epstein & Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square Boston, jilM 02110

U .S. .Dept. ofHomdand Security .Enforcement and Remova l Office lO NewEngland Executive Park Drive BW'lington, MA-O I803

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal
Dear Mr. LONDA,

This is in response to your App filed with the Enforcement and
Customs Enforc.ement (ICE).

lication for Stay ofDeporlation or Removal, which Removal Operations Division oflmmigration and

was

I have reviewed your case and I -246 application and extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval

determined that of your request.

there

are

gAgrrcaacnnottiernddginfoogrflytah, tiaessms.atpamoyraraetrtqyeurpeoesrftidodidosecorsfetntwiootenclvoyenofu(er1r2Aa)pnmpyloiimncatmhtisoigfnrroafomtirotSnhtseatyadtaoutfseRooerfmtbheoinvseaJfleittitsetorh.eyrToeuhb.ey·

I
I

Sin~j~lBJ

I

Arch~ incent

·

Acting Field Office Director

Depattment of Homeland Security

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations

Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docu\ ment 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 6 of 153
.. Department of Homeland Security Enforcement and Removal Office
10 New England Executive Park Dr.
Burlington, MA 01805

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

SyaneKALOH (A- -
C/0 John Loscocco~
10 Wi11throp Square, 2" Floor
Boston, MA 02JJO

MAR 2 9 2013

Re: I-246 Application for Stay ofDeportation or Removal

Dear Ms. KALOH,
Tills is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division oflnunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and 1-246 application and determined that circumstances exist that are beyond those an alien ordered removed would normally face which wan-ant the granting of your request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your most recent Application for Stay ofRemoval is hereby granted for a temporary period which will end on November 10, 2013. The granting of this stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

Sincerely,

.~ I '

CC: John Loscocco, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docu\ ment 37-3

Filed 10/03/17

Pioarcgemett7ll aondf R1em5O3Wtl
,.ton Field Office

Operations

B1U0u.SrNl.ienDwgetopEn:un,g1M[maAnedn0Et1ox8ef0cH3uotimveelPaanrdk S~urity

U.S.
and

Immigration
Customs

Enforcement

SyaneKALOH C/0 John Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square Boston, MA 02110
RE: ~- a Stay of Deportation or Removal

February 17,2014

Dear Ms. KALOH:

This U.S.

is in response to Immigration and

your Application for a Customs Enforcement

S(ItCayEo) foDn eNpoovrteamtiboenro1r9R,2e0m1o3v.al,

which

was

filed

\vith

· .

dFcRAeaeetfsbemterer.umroavcirTnaayhlra,eetlifriout~~nlhfOoca~sofL,nwbs5yehi.doeeeunthrrAadeatetripottetphnhnleeinocriafeentmnaieloddolnvtothahffeolarottfhartadahcteteSorptrgwaseryriaailnolodtdbdfin,reDegtesehxsopeeeofdcsrsuttiuaatnecttiudhyosoandutoiosrtfhcrraryeRetqotetiuuiommernsoeactv.rafyasolerrieaswlihSeilfetlariyebsbeowyfraeaDrvpraeipenprwotoevredtedadtinifouontnrhtoiiaslr

Sincerely,

Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 8 of 153
Enforcemem and Removal Operations Boston Field O.Qice
U.S. Department ofHornehmtl Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Syane KALOH C/0 John Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square Boston, MA 0211 0
RE: 1~r a Stay of Deportation or Removal

August 30, 2016

Dear Ms. KALOH:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on July 26,2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Dep01tation or Removal, it has been detennined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Dep01tation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until August 29, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
./1 w-: Sincerely,~'/1t/hvC/~'>QrtP
Chris Cronen Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 9 of 153

Enforcement and Remowlf Opemtinns Bosum Ffe/d Office

U.S. Department of Homeland Security I000 District/\venue Burlington, MA 01803

rj~~~~ U.S. Immigration

~-f)
~~t~}

and Customs Enforcement

Ms. Syane Kaloh C/o John Loscocco, Esquire Barker, Epstein & Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02110
Re: Application for a Stay of Depmtation or Removal
Syane Kaloh I A•lillll•il

September 5, 2017

Dear Ms. Kaloh:
This letter is in response to the filing of F01m 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on August 16, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a pa11icular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border secmity.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have detennined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not stJfficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

~C.11.Cronen
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 10 of 153
Exhibit II

) Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS
'. U.-'1: Departm ent of Homeland Security
mn~ iornt·1nn and Customs Enforcement

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17

Page 11 of 153

D.O.B.

C.O.B Indonesia

{ J Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April I, J997.
[ x ] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997..

Because the lnunigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal has not effected your deportation orremoval during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under the following conditions:

[X] That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of he Immigration nnd Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[X] That upon request of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, you appear for medical opsychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

[X] That you provide information under oath about your national ity, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other

infonnation as the Immigratb n and Cusn~or~ment f!~ of Detention and Removal considers appropriate.

[X) That you do not travel outside

<Pkw Hau~

for more than 48 hours without ftrst having notified the Immigration

(S~cit)' geogr3pllic limits, ifany)

and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal offic.e o[ the dates and places of such proposed travel.

(X] That you furnish written notice to lmmigrationand Customs En_forcelllent Office of Detention ond Rcmovnl of nny change ofrcsidem:e or employment within 48 hours ofsuch change.

[X] That you report in person on Wednesday October 27'h at 9:00 f!1!.L_ to this Service oftice at: 811 Caual Street, Jl-Janchester N ew Hampshire, unless you are granted written penriission to report on another date.

[X) That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal in obtaining any necessary travel douments.

[X] Other: Bring rm interpreter in vo11r native language

[ ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions(C()utinue on separate sheet if required)

Alien's Ack nowledgment of Conditions ofRelense under an Order of Supervision

l hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the

language) the contents of

this order, a opy of which has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of thi!t>rder may subject me to a

fine, dete on r prosecution.

~-!/au I (Signat"{c of alien)

Form 1-2208 ( Rev. 8114/07)N

~.
I I :
r,_·.,..,.· ~

) . Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

.., Filed 10/03. /17·•..."J'i Page 12 of 153

U.S. Department of Hom eland Security

Imm

and Customs Enforcement

Alic:n'sName
\-\!=~'0 ~\J\fl\ \JJ'C\1)

for Fonn: I-2203

Alien's Siglature

(picture)

RIGHT INDEX PRfNT

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD O F FICER

r2-/t l tl! l

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 13 of 153
A-number As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the following conditions must be met by your next repo11 in day. There will be no exceptions:
1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS OFFICE)
2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)
3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.
/r /to Next repo11 in Date 11...-

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 14 of 153

Iferu KURNIAWAN (A -

)

C/0 William A. Haltn, Esq.

101 Tremont St. Suite #1106

Boston, MA 02108

·

U.s.· Department of Homeland Security
Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Executive Park Drive Burlington, MA 01 805

Dea:rMr. KURNIAWAN
This is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal filed by you d'ated November 26,2010.
You are a native and citizen of INDONESIA who entered the United States on June 21, 1997. In February of 2003, you were jssued a Notice to Appear charging you with being removal:lle from the United States pmsuant to Section 237 (a)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (ACT). On March 28, 2006 the Immigration Judge (IJ) in Boston, MA ordered you removed from the United States to Indonesia, a decision which you appealed to the Board oflmmigration Appeals (BIA). On September 5, 2007, the BIA dismissed your appeal and affirmed the IJ's order of removal. You filed a Petition for Review with the First Circuit Court ofAppeals which was denied on August 28, 2008.
You are now requesting ICE to exercise favorable discretionary relief from removal based on participation in Operation Indonesian Surrender; a joint effort between the Boston Field Office ofiCEERO, couununity leaders within the Indonesian community, Sh·afford County Sheriffs Office and ICE Headquarters.
In weighing the factors in your case, I have concluded that the favorable exercise of discretion is not merited. CwTently, there is no administrative relief available to you and this office will not consider any claimed ellgibility for future relief from removal that must be addressed by the EOllv.BlA. In addition, your application fails to present any new facts or substantial equities that have not already been considered in your case that would warrant the granting ofyo\.lr application. Lastly, I am satisfied that you have been accorded due process of law and afforded every opportunity to apply for relief from removal throughout the proceeding. Therefore, after careful consideration, your request for a stay of deportation or removal is hereby denied as a matter of discretion. Due to your voluntary participation with Operation Indonesian Surrender, ICE will grant you a period of 90 days from the date of this order in which to settle your affairs and complete your departure from the United States.

<"'

Vincent

e

Acting Field 0 ce Director

ICE-ERO I oston, MA Field Office

CC: William Halm, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 15 of 153
Office ~, r:njorcement and Removal Operations U.S. Department ofHomeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington Massachusetts 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
December 21, 2012
HeruKURNIAWAN ~ C/0 WilliamA. Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont St. Suite #1106 Boston, MA 02108
Re: 1-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal
Dear MR. KURNIAWAN,
This is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and 1 -246 application and determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay ofRemoval is hereby granted for a temporary period until November 15, 2013. The granting of this stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

Since~rely;.. f Wv /,rY. ,

Doro ~~tis"?-2

Fiel

e Duector

Department of Homeland Security

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations

Boston Field Office

JI\N 1 8 20\3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docu\ment 37-3

Filed 10/03/-1-···fs7otorcneFPmieeanldtgaOenfdfi.c1Re6emoovfal1O5pe3rations
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

February 17, 2014
Heru KURNIAWAN C/0 William A. Hahn ESQ. 101 Tremont St. Ste. 11 06 Boston, MA 02108
RE: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal A
Dear Mr. KURNIAWAN:
This is in response to your Application for a Stay ofDeportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 26, 2013.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is wan·anted in this case. Theref~, yom application for a Stay of Depmtation or Removal is hereby approved until February 1,,"2Bl5. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed fo r a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,
Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 17 of 153
i'uretment and Removal Operations &>ston Field Office U.S. Department ofHomeland Security 10 Ne\Y :England Executive Park Burlington, MA 0 1803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
March 3, 20 J5
Heru Kurniawan
C/o William A. Hahn
10 1 Tremont St., Suite 1106 Boston~ M A 021 08
RE: Application for a Heru Kurniawan;
Dear Mr. Kurniawan:
This letter is in response to yow- I-246, Application for a Stay ofDepo11ation or Removal, which was filed wi.th U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 23,2015.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency ch arged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement p riorities, namely national security, public safety. an.d border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is wan-anted in this
case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of D eportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until M arch 2, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at t hat time.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 18 of 153
Enforcement and Removal Opemtions Boston Field Office
li.S. Department of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Heru Kurniawan C/o William A. Halm, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a Stay of Depmtation or Removal Heru Kurniawan,

June 9, 2016

Dear Mr. Kurniawan:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fom1 I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Aptil22, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confom1 with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Depmtation or Removal, it has been dete1mined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until June 8, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17j!'CemPc/a11gaend1Re9moovefr/1O5pe3rations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Ourlington, J\11A 01803
·u.s. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement

Heru Kurniawan C/o Melissa Devereaux, Esq. 415 Central Park West, #lAR New York, N Y 10025
Re: Applica. tion for a St~ation or Removal
Heru Kurniawan, A- -

April 24, 20 17

Dear Mr. Kurniawan:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fmm I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, wi th U.S. Immigration and Custom s Enforcement (ICE) on April 10,201 7.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of depmtation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
l have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and 1 have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not suf!iciently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Dep01tation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal fro m this decision.

Sincerely,
C_ M.Cj&rQ.k._,
...l&re. M. Cronen Field Office Direc tor

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 20 of 153
E11o/ rccmelll <•ml R,qmova/ Opermion.r
~oswn Field OJ)Iee
U~'\. Drpn rtm cnt of Homelnntl Scrurity JOOO District Avenue Burlington, i\-11\ 0 1803
U.S. bnn1igration and Customs Enforcement

Heru Kurniawan
12 Winter Street Dover, NH 03820
Re: Application for a Stay of.Deport<ltion or Removal Heru Kurniawc.u1, A-

September I 1, 2017

Dear Mr. Kurniawan:
This leltet is in response to lhe filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Custom$ Enfor~:ement (ICE) on September 5, 20 17.
Prosccutorial discretion is the authority of an agcm:y charged \:V.ith enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE? like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion ahd may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take oh dift~rent forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis., after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national sect1rity, public safety, nnd border security.
r have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the l~lclors addressed in the Application for a Stay of
Depmiation or Remoyul, and I have determined that tbe granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,
C·'"\ .Ct~r:.•\S:."-­
:r~ C. M. Cronen h- Field Oftice Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 21 of 153
Exhibit JJ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 22 of 153

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforceu::nt

Order of Su ervision
FileNo:~
Date: 09/03/201.0

. Name: i ONbfi JOhn

D.O.B. 7/'f/19~ 2"'

C.O.B Indonesia

on _!i}JkltiJ_, you were ordered.: (Date oflioal order}

[ [

] :<]

Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April

to I,

April 1997.

l,

1997.

Because the Immigration period prescribed by Jaw,

and Customs it is ordered

Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal has that you be placed under supervisio11 and permitted

not effecred your deportation mremoval during to be at large under the following conditions:

the

[

X)

That you appear in Office of Detention

person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

of

he

Imm

igration

and

Customs

Enfo

rcement

XJ That upon request of the Imm igration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, you appear for medical c psychiatTic
examination at the expense of the United States Government.

X]

That you provide information under information as the lmmigratbn and

CouatshtoambsouEtnfyoorucremnaetniotnOafliftiyc,ecoirfcDumetesntatniocnesa, nhdabRietsm, aosvsaolcciaotniosindse,rasnadpparcotipvriitaietes.

and

such

other

X]

11lat you do not travel outside

the New England States
{SJle<:ify s oogrnphic limits, if any)

and Custol'Os Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal

office

for more than 48 hours without ftrst having notified of the dates and places of such proposed travel.

the

Imm igration

ly UY1(f X] Temhaptlyooyumfeunmt wisi~thwinJi4tt8enhonuortiscoe ftosuIcmhmchigarnagtieo>n~and~Customs~ EnforceJD. ent Office of Detention and Removal of any change of residence or

iS ;x] That you report in person on November

at 9:00 mu to this Service oflice at: 811 Canal Street, il1anchester New Hampshirt

imless you are granted written pe1mission to report on another date.

[X] That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal in obtaining any necessary travel dooments.

[X) Other: Bring n11 interpreter in vour native language
[ 1 See attached sheet containing other specified conditions(Cor.tinue on sep:1rnte sheet ifrequired)

(Signature CE OftkiaO
fJt!t"Mcl& !l. ~d( .<)o. (Pri;;;;;;me and title of INS ollieizl)

Alien'

Acknowledgm ent of Conditions of Release un der an Ord er of Supervision
.,-

q.-t e ge th
' ofwhi r prose'

have (read) (had h.has been given to
twn.

minete.rp1ruentedderasntadnedxtphlaatintae(ditlo~mce~~inllt-h~e~w...i/--1t1 hdtt.htle.

<J'ft"

language) the COJ!tents of

terms of thirorder may subject me to a

\.--J.4-__..,;::~~=::::===~:::::::=--- ,.tt

\,

./

(Sl8Jllltme of alien)

09/03/2010
Date

!loml I-220B {Rev. 8/14/07)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 23 of 153
\

U.S. Department of Homclund Security r,....,...,,trr<~t.'•~, and Customs

Continuation
File Number

for Fonn: I-220B

Alie11's Signature

(picture)

RIGHT INDEX P

-D AT R

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

OFFICER

C OMMENT/ CHANGES

I
I~, ~
l
Title
.Deportation Officer_
----------------_J

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 24 of 153

A-number
As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the foll owing conditions must be .met by your next report in day. There will be no exceptions:
1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (B1JRLINGTON, MASS OFFICE)
2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)
3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

.\ ,.., _,..~,f

c·

/ "j_\. ("- f/?--
sign_ _!.....___,_:/:__-"_ "\ _·j..._. ---'-·----

I'~I /o Next report in Date

:J

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 25 of 153
i
I
\
l
\

·.·:. .. ... . •. . .
\ '...; .

. -. ·.

U.S. Dept. ofHomeland Security . Enforcement and Removal O"fiice 10 New England Executive Park Drive .Bw·Ungton, MA 01803

Joltn LONDA (AC/O John Loscocco, Esq. B aker, Epstein & Loscocco
10 Winthrop Square
Boston, MA 02110

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation er Removal
Dear Mr. LONDAH, This is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was fLied with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division oflmmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I have reviewed your case and I -246 application and determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period of twelve (12) months from the date ofthis letter. The granting of tl:lis stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

Vincent Archibeque Acting Field Office Director Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations
Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3 \

Filed 10/03/17 Page 26 of 153
: Department of Homeland Security Enforcement and Removal Office
I0 New England Executive Park Dr. Burlington, MA 0 1805

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Jolm LONDA (A -
C/O .John Loscocco, Esq. 10 Winthrop Square, l''d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Re: I-246 Application for Stay ofDeportation or Removal

MAR 2 9 zon

Dear Mr. LONDA, This is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I have reviewed your case and I -246 application and detem1ined that circumstances exist that are beyond those an alien ordered removed would normally face which warrant the granting ofyour request. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your most recent Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period which will end on November 10, 2013 . The granting of this stay request does not confer any immig1·ation status or benefit to you.

s incereu
~·.

\\(.J\r~ ~u;I~,,,~:.~,·

·

Dorothy fuR;e£jt¥.,iJMt.-Hllt:S Field Office D1rector

Boston Field Office I ICE-ERO

CC: John Loscocco, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3 \

Filed 10/03/17•rcePmaengt (emd2R7emoovfa1l O5p3emlions
..Jvn Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Securily I0 New England Execulive Park Burlinglon, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration ·and Customs Enforcement

Febmary 17, 2014

JohnLONDA
C/0 John Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square Boston, MA 021 10

Dear Mr. LONDA:

This
U.S.

is in response to your Application for a Stay ofDeportation or Removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on. November 19, 2013.

which

was

filed

with

cARFdaeeefstbtmeeerr.ruomavcTriaanyrlha,eetfIiirufto¥elnh~ ~caoeos,fnbw1seyi5dh.eoeenurtrhaAdetaeitroptentpthhrlreoeiiclfrlaeneatnmeilolddonthvtohfeafoaltrftoahtarchadtetoSerrtpgsaweryaariUindootdidfbnr,eeDgsteeshoxpeefe0dc1ssiuuttnaatcettihyudoosndauitorostcfrrhreayReqtotueituoimemrnsoatecvrf.ayaoslrereiaslwiSehitlfealryiesbboewyfarDaenpveapipnerotwoervetdaedtdiinofuontnhrotiiasrl

Sincerely, Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 28 of 153 \ E1tjorceme111 and Removal Operations Bos1on Field Office
U.S. Department or Homel:tud Secm·ity
1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 0!803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

John Landa C/o John Loscocco Esq. 10 Winthrop Square, 211d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
A- Re: Application for a Stay ofDeportation or Removal John Londa,

August 24,2016

Dear Mr. Londa:

TRheims olevtatle,rwisithinUr.eSs.pIomnmseigtorattihoenfainlidngCousftoFmorsmE1n-f2o4rc6e,mAepnptli(cICatEio)n,

for a Stay on July 20,

of Depottation 2016.

or

wePedteonnrnehtoffpfaaooosolterrirrctccctydeeaueemmtmtiogooeeerrfnninenatettot.lhpardtegroiriesToecncmrhericirenetoyictsfev,iuoeosamrh,nlc.adnsesiitassaSmpctntthrrhiceeoceeelthsysieola,dcannueuawatbcthtrooiiyoostarrhniigoiaadtanlylepisndcsooseiiasfsstcriicetuaoirarnvnemiettspiayaoga,dtanreapentnkuiadccoebnuynldnlioaccaemnrhgscaaaaiadrfnytgseiidvefetefiye-dvxeb,,ireywdaer-anunccindtiatahsdlse.bfeeoominrrbtmfdIuaoiCensssrritEcstsi,,ahnecneagcoldfiuntkoareferiiortdnlyraiccma.nwolnuanyrdtswyoeiodicdtteshohertucieanirryIdsgCseelaEthtoowo'esff

AtoudhrnefitttsReielcmeraAmclsiauoenrg.veauaftTiulso,tlhnie2ctro3oeh,nffas2owsi0rdheb1ee,e7rtey.ahnoteiuArodrtenthtAetoehmpfrepe1almeilinlncoedathvdtieaootlfhfnoaatchfrtodtaotrethrreaspweSagridrtilaaoldyndrbte,eoisntfsehgexDedeoescfiptunasottueryutdcosahtuaoirdotftnirhsyecoaqorturuertetRiimsocetanmefsa.oeorryvwaarilelSllitisaebyhfeeiorsreefvwbDiyaeerwaprpaeonpdrttreaofdotviroeindna

Si#~)~ Jor :

C.M. Cronen Field Oft1ce Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 29 of 153 \
£nforcemP.IIt and llemoval Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Dcpnrtmcnt of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington , MA 01803

Mr. John Londa C/o John Loscocco, Esquire Barker, Epstein & Loscocco 10 Winthrop Square 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02110
Re: Application for a Stay ofDepo1tation or Removal
John Landa I A••t• • •

September 5, 2017

Dear Mt. Londa:

TRhemis olveattle,rwiisthilUl .rSe.sIpmonmsiegrtaotiothneanfidlinCgusotofmFsmEmnfoI-r2c4e6m,eAntp(pIClicEa)tioonn

for a Stay of Deportation August 16,2017.

or

PdTaSsbgeeruohocgecteushnrhseerceipecydtuydo,ett,sicoohsipitrcasiuieirvsaoebnelntflpidiosoracironnsacsscadreaererfecynetmtuhteidytoegaoe,nadrclatieaiiianssvwlodieton,hdbnaeioaassgnrcaactddruaiaeenktsthmrseeiotso-uerbnoaiscynttuya-prcdcnaoiaoditrffysntfie.aefmconrubearalmanyasgtriesewf,inxonciaerdtymfrhitcvecsiIrihsCdeaacuEnroaigdn'tlse.sidiinnedcnlwelCftruhioitEdnehrceg, eeoltsmnirhtkdfaeeoeiynnrtsctaoairntopnyayrgfliiodctaoyeortilphuotairoe:·wesfrrsetth,atloateoniwoafdcnmeiereccneoniulfdrfyomeorrrencstcomteaeamtmnwoiovceehnenanaaslttt..l,

IDsuhefapfvioceriteacntaitroleynfuwollrayrRrraeenmvtieoedvw.aeld,TayhnoeduArI pfhiplaelv,iecaasdtieowtneerlmfloairnseatdhSetthafaaytcttoohfresDgaerdapdnortteitnsasgteiodonfinsourtchRheedAmispocpvrleaitcliaoitnsioahnryeftoerebrlyaieSdfetiasnyineoodtf. There is no appea[ from this decision.

Sincerely,

·\ GA C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

www. icc.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 30 of 153
Exhibit KK

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 31 of 153
U.S. Department of Homeland Seeurity

D.O.B.

C.O.B Indonesia

[ J Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April I, 1997. [X] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April!, 1997.
Because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal has not effected your deportation on-emoval during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pennitted to be at large under the following conditions:
[X] That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon eHch and every request of he Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removaL
[X] That upon request of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, you appear for medical n psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government
[X]

[X]
(Specify geographic limits, ifany)
and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal office of the dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.
[X] That you furnish written notice to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal of any change ofresidence or employment within 48 hours of such change.
[X] That you report in person on Wednesday November 3rd at 9:00am to this Service offtce at: 811 Ca11al Street, Mane/tester New Hampshire, u_nless you are granted written l?_e_nnission to rep?rt on another date.
[X] That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal in obtaining any necessary travel domnents.
[X] Other: Bring an inlerpreter in your native lmz~ua~e
[ J See attached sheet containing other specified conditions(Ccnrinueon separate sheet ifrequired)
?(~L~-·
[/ (Signature of!CE Official)
6 /k() («fyo'6-(Print nome and title of INS official)

Alien 1s Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

~/[ I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted Hlld explained to me in the

{

language) the contents nf

this order, a copy ofwhic.h has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply Witthe tenns ofthis:)fder may subject me to a

fme, detenf n, or prosecution.
~/

Sig~~a

r er}

Date

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 32 of 153

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 33 of 153

A-number

As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the following conditions must be met by your next repmt in day. There will be no exceptions:

1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION

WOFITFIHCET)HECRE* QU~ IRED

FEES (BURLINGTON,
\'\J::,fco

MASS

I 2)

VALID pAS SPORT MANCHESTER (IF

MUST BE SUBMITTED NOT ALREADY DONE)

TCO~'IuC-rE&:>

) 11 '5

/t:J

3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

Sign~
1lf9>po Next report in Date

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 34 of 153

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 35 of 153

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 36 of 153

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 37 of 153

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 38 of 153

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 39 of 153
Exhibit LL

Case 1:17-cv-1184-..2: ·-PBS
U.S. D epar tment of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service

Document 37-3

Filed 10/·0··":'!'3-· /17
.........

Page 40 of 153
Order of Supervision

Name: hlruyi~ LUMINGKEWAS

FileNo:Date: 04/17/2013

on 05/14/2010, you were ordered:
(Date of final order)

[ ) Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April I, 1997. (X] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced·on or after April 1, 1997.

Because the Service has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pemtitted to be at large under the following conditions:

[X) That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request ofthe Service, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[X] That upon request of the Service, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Govemment.
[X) That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other information as the Service considers appropriate.

(X] That you do not travel outSide

New Hampshire

for more than 48 hours without first.

(Specify geog;ophic timils, if my)

having notified this Service office ofthe dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.

[X) That you fumish written notice to this Service office ofany change ofresidence or employment within 48 hours of such change.
[X] That you report in person on the upon request and as required to this Service office at: 275 Chestnut Street. Room 210 Manchester, NH. unless you are granted written permission to report on another date.
[X) That you assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service in obtaining any necessary travel documents.

( ] Other: __..

[X] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Cominue on sepllfate sheet ifrequired)

(Sigu ture of INS official)

Timothy T. Stevens

SDDO

(PrU:t nam• and tille oflNS official)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision
I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (11ad interpreted and explained to me in the language) the contents of this order, a c1.1py ofwhich has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of this order may subject me to a fine, detention, or prosecution.

(Sigua1Ure ofalien)

Form l-220B(Rev. 411197)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 41 of 153

U.S. Depattment of J ust ice

Imm ·

and Naturalization Service

Al ien's Name
Meivie LUMINGKEWAS

Continuation 5 for Form:

Date 04/ 1712013

I-220B

Alien's Signature

Alien's Telephone Number (if any) PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

RIGHT INDEX PRINT

S ignature

Title

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 42 of 153

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Irmn" ion and Customs Enforcement
Name:Meivie LUMINGKEWAS

Order of
Date: 04/17/2013

[X] That you d o not associate with criminals or members of a gang th at is known to be involved in criminal activity.
l] That you r egister in a substance abuse program within 14 d ays an d provide Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) with written proof of such within 30 days. The proof must include the.name, address, duration, and objectives of the program as well as the name of a program counselor.
[ ] That you register in a sexual deviancy counseling program within 14 d ays and provide ICE with written proof of such within 30 days. You must provide ICE with the name of the progra m, the address of the program: the duration and objectives of the program, and the name of a program counselor.
[] That you register as a sex offender, if applicable, within 7 days of being r eleased, with the appropriate agency/agencies and provide ICE with written proof of such registration within 10 days. ·
[X] That you do not commit any crimes or be associated with any criminal activity while on this Order of
Supervision.
[] That you rep ort t o a parole or probation officer as r equired within 5 business days and provide ICE with written verification of th e offi cer's name, addr ess, teleph on e number, and repor ting requirements.
[X] You must follow all reporting and supervision requirements as mandated by the parole or probation officer.
[X].-T-hat you-continue -to -follow-any-prescribed-doctor?.s-order-s-wh ether-m cd ical-or psychologkal, including··· · talting prescribed medications.
[X] That you make good faith and timely efforts to obtain a travel document and assist ICE in obtaining a travel d ocument.
[X] That you submit a complete application for a travel document to all app ropriate Embassies or Consulates, including those representing the countries of Indonesia. You must present ICE with evidence that each Embassy or Consulate to which you apply has received your r equest and all required documents. This may be done, for example, by mailing your application(s) with a r equest for return r eceipt and providing the signed r eturn receipt to ICE, by obtaining a tracking number when y ou mail your appJication(s) and providing the number to ICE, or by submitting written confirmation of receipt issued by the Embassy or Consulate.
[X] That you subm it you r application(s) for a travel document to all appropriate Embassies or Consulates and provide proof of receipt to ICE on or before - - - - - - - -- - -
[X] That you provide ICE a copy of your application(s) for a travel document that you submit to any Embassy or Consulate, including aU supporting documents, photos, and other items provided to the Embassy or Cons ulate to support your application(s).

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 43 of 153
[X) That you provide ICE a copy of all correspondence related to your travel document application(s) that you send to, or receive from, an Embassy or Consulate.
[X] That you contact the Embassy or Consulate within 21 calendar days of making your application(s) to confirm that the information you provided is sufficient.
[XJ That you comply with any requests from an Embassy or Consulate for an interview and make good faith
efforts to submit further documentation if required by the Embassy or Consulate.
[X] Every time you report in person under this order of supervision, you must inform the local ICE office of all actions you have taken to obtain a travel document. You must provide any available written documentation to ICE regarding these actions and the status of your travel document application(s).
[X] That you provide ICE, upon request, with any and all information relevant to application(s) for a travel document. This may include, but is not limited to, information regarding your family history, including dates ol birth, nationalities, addresses, and phone numbers as requested for such persons, whether in your country of nationality and/or citizenship or elsewhere, and your past residences, schools attended, etc.
[X] You will participate in a supervised release program, as described in the attached document. You will comply with the rules and requirements of this program, and cooperate with its administrators.
I agree to comply with the rules, requirements, and administrators in the supervised release program described in the attached document.
Alien'ssignature _______________ Date ____________
[] Other.

Any violation of any of the above conditions may result in a fine, more restrictive release conditions, return to detention, criminal prosecution, and/or revocation of your employment authorization document.
Alien's Acknowledgement of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision
I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the _ _ language) the contents ofthi: order and addendum, a copy of which has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of this order and addendum may subject me to a fine, more restrictive release conditions, detention, criminal prosecution, and/or revocation of my employment authorization document.

(Signature of ICE official serving order)

(Signarure of alien)

(date)

?lease note that all referen~es in this order/addendum to ~!Nsn or~Servicen sbould now be comidered to refer to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Updated 4/25/2005

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/1·\7s. DPepnargtmecn4t 4ofHoofm1el5an3tl Security
.1forcement Hnd Removal Operations
Boston field Office
JONew England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

April30, 2013
Meivie LUNfiNGKEWAS C/0 William A. Hahn 101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, :tv1A. 02108

A.~-·

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Mrs. Lumingkewas

This is in response to youd -246, Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed
with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April 18, 2013 .

Atter reviewing your case and the I-246 application, I have detennined that certain extraordinary
circumstances exist that are beyond those an alien ordered removed would nonnally face which
warrant the granting ofyour request.

Accordingly, as a matter ofdiscretion, your application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a
temporary period ofone (1) year from the date ofthls notice and will end on Apri129, 2014. The
granting of tills stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

Sincer:.l(\
~~ ~
Dorothy ID~~Niles

/I. .1"·

Field Office Director

Department of Homeland Security

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Office ofEnforcement and Removal Operations

Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 45 of 153
·,iforcement and Deportation Opermions ~osto11 Field 0/]ice U.S. DctJartmcnt of Homclnnd S~cu rity 10 New England Executi ve Park Burlinglon. MA 01803
July 21, 2014
Meivie Lumingkewas c/o ·william A. Halm
101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, MA 021 08
RE : Application for a Stay of Meivie Lumingkewas,
Dear Mrs. Lumingkewas,
This is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay ofDeportation or Removal, wifu U.S . Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April22, 2014.
After careful consideration of all the factors addr essed in your request for a Stay of
DepOiiation or Removal, it has been detennined that the granting of such discretionary
reliefis warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a petiod of One Year, until June 22,2015. At the end of
that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the
removal order will be executed at that time.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 46 of 153
l:."nforcemen/ and Removal Operations Bos1011 Field Office
U.S. Department of Homelaud Security I0 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Meivie Lumingkewas C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont Street, Suite 812 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of~r Removal Meivie Lurningkewas, A- -

July 8, 2015

Dear Mrs. Lumingkewas:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fonn 1-246, Application for a Stay of Depmiation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on May 14,2015.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authodty of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individuaL ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fmms and include stays of depmiation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE' s enforcement priorities, namely national secuLity, public safety, and border secuiity.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until July 7, 2016. At the end of that period, the status ofyour case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

www.ice.gov

> II

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 47 of 153

I

Enforcement and Removal Operations

I

I '

Boston Field Office

1

~

U.S. Department of Homela nd Security

1
~

1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA Ol803

I

U.S. Immigration

f

and Customs Enforcement

I

Meivie Lumingkewas C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108

t

May 16,2016

I

~
' 1
~

il
i!
l'Ii lj

Re: Application for a Stay of~or Removal

I

Meivie Lumingkewas, ~
J
I'

!
! Dear Ms. Lumingkewas:

This letter is in response to the filing of Form 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April22, 2016.

Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border secutity.

After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Dep01tation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until May 15, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 48 of 153
' t 6~~f:.}J'(;f!nl,;sri <llid R~mo'l.·<d Oper(ltiou}· f!<>:;toJ: F!dd Of!i(·:·
t!.S. Dtrp!trtln'~nH of tJ'um~hnltl ~ct.•ut·~!y 1000 l)i;;trkl !\ 'i('!lll;! Bur!ing-hln. •\i;\ 01 ~0~

Meivie Lumingke"vas Cio Wiliim11 A Hahn, Esq.
36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
R0: Ap~li~ation ~or a Stay o~~ or Removal Metvu~ Lummgkcwas, ~

August 7, 2017

Dear ·Mrs. Lmuingkewas:

This letter is in response i.o the :tlling of Form 1-246~ Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U .S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 17) 2017.

Prosecuto.rial discretion is the authority of an agency c:harged wjth enforcing a f.av,· to decide to t.vhat degree to enforc:e the law against a pat'ticular individual. ICE, like any other law entorcement agency" has prosecutori,,l discretion <md may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case ba;jis, after considering the totallty of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE'::; enforcen1ent priodties, narnely national security, public safety, m1d border security.

I have carefulLy review~d your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay
of Deportation or Removal, and I have deiermined that the granting ofsuc'h discretionary relief is
not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal 1s hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision .
S. t/n·ely~~, :\x_ .,

;.',·{/

_)

. M. Cro11cn
eld Offi.ce Direc1o1'

Vr'Vi\V .ice. gov

' . I· L

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 49 of 153
Enfurcel/l(?/1/ (llld Rl'moml OperatiOIIS Bflslmr Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington. MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Meivie Ltuningkewas C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.
36 Bromfield St., Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Meivic Lumingkewas,

September 19,2017

Dear Ms. Lumingkewas:
This letter is in response to the filing of form 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September 7, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individuaL ICE, 1ike any other law entorcemenl agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform \-Vith ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
1have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have detennincd that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.
Sincerely,
CJ'\..ere. ~
~C. M. Cronen · Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 50 of 153
Exhibit MM

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS
..U.S. Department of Homeland SecuraJ
Immigratio n & Customs Enforcement

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 51 of 153 Order of Supervision

NAME: LUMINGKEWAS, Ma1tin

FILE: ~
DATE: 04-02-2013

on May 14. 201 0 , you were ordered:
(Date of final or&r}
( ) Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April l , 1997. (X) Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April ! , 1997.
Because the Service has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pennitted to be at large under the fo llowing conditions:
[x] That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request ofthe Service, for identification and for deportation or removal.
( x] That upon request ofthe Service, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense ofthe United States Government.
( x] Tliat you provide infonnation under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other information as the SerVice considers appropriate.
[XJ That you do not travel outside _ _ __ _ ___.N_~ EW!..!.....E.O""N-"G""L""AND'-=-'""'"-'S"'"T...,A..,.T,_.E""·S.,___ _ __ _ _ for more than 48 hours without first
(Sp<:eify geographic lirnirs, ifany)
having notified this Service office of the dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.
[ x] That yolt furnish written notice to this Service office ofany change ofresidence or employment within 48 hoUJs ofsuch change.

[X) That you report in person on the 1ST TUESDAY OF EACH MQNIH

to this Service office at:

ICEIERO O FFICE /275 Chestnut St. Manchester. NH 03101 unless you are granted written permission to report on another date.

[x J That you assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in obtaining any necessary travel documents.

[ ] Other:

Dorothy Herrera-Niles I Field 0 tee Director
(Prim name ~nd title of INS official)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

this been thi I

hereby acknowledge that I have orde~La copy ofwhich has

(read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the -iiveri to"me. I miderstand failure to comply.

language) the contents of
withihe-terms.ofthiS-OJ:cfel..may subject me to a

~¥~M'">"~,"'"'"''

Ir~j,J_A,f_\~•..•..',,-l-,

7'-;.)--/,::S '""

Fonn l·220B{Rcv. 4fii9?)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 52 of 153

U.S. Depat·tm ent ofHomelancl Security Dnmigration·& ·C~stoms Enforcement

IAlien's Name

-··

..

LUMINGKEWAS, Martin

Continuation Page for Fo1m:
File Number

Date
04-02-20 13

I-220B

V

Alien's Signature

Alien 's Address

BJGHT INDEX I'RINT

DATE

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

OFFICER

COMMENT/CHANGES

rurc

ITitle

I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17S. DePpaargtmeen5t o3f Hoofm1el5an3d Security

I

.tforcement an<l Remov~l Operntions

!3ostou fie ld Offit.:e I0 New England Executive Park

I

Btrrlington. MA 01803

i.r'

i

y.s . Immigration

~

and Customs

!
f

Enforcement

(

I

April30, 2013
Martin LUMINGKEWAS C/0 William A. Hahn

I
i

101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106

Boston, MA. 021 08

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Mr. Lumingkewas

Tilis is in response to your I-246, Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed
with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April18, 2013.

After reviewing your case and the I-246 application, I have determined that certain extraordinary circumstances exist that are beyond those an alien ordered removed would normally face which warrant the granti.J1g of your request.

Accordingly, as a matter of discretion, your application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period of one (1) year from the date of this notice and will end on April29, 2014. The granting of tlus stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

Sincerelbcthy 8:rfi~v):J f":['

1 -_,. ·thy D oro . ."CwJT.J·J\tJ.ILV-L•4\~,I..t.l..::"i"<;',F!l ~--:r.~;:,;

::)

Field Office Director

Department of Homeland Secmity

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations

Boston Field Office

•forcemem and Deporta/ion Operarions
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17tostoPnaFigeled O5ff4iceof 153

li.S. Dcpartmtnt ofHomclaml Security 10 New England Executive Pmk

i
·i

Burlington. MA 01803

II

'r

U.S. Immigration and Customs

I

Enforcement

Mru1in Lumingkewas c/o William A. Hahn 101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, MA 02108

July 21, 2014

I

I

I

RE : Application for a Stay of~r Removal Martin Lurningkewas, A ~

Dear Mr. Lumingkewas,

This is in response to the flii11g of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April22, 2014.

After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been detennined that the granting ofsuch discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of One Year, Lmtil June 22, 2015. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a detennination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

es
A; ting Deputy Field Officer Director ~oston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 55 of 153
Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Depa•·tment of Homeland Security I0 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Irnn1igration and Customs Enforcement

Martin Lumingkewas C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont Street, Suite 11 06 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of~or Removal Martin Lumingkewas, ~

May 21,2015

Dear Mr. Lumingkewas:
This letter is in response to the flling of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on May 14,2015.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law lo decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of dep01iation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal. it has been detem1ined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until May 20, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 56 of 153
byorcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security I0 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Martin Lurningkewas
C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.
101 Tremont Street, Suite 812 Boston, MA 02 I08
Re: Application for a Stay of~r Removal Martin Ltuningkewas, A - -

June 3, 2015

Dear Mr. Lurningkewas:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on May 14,2015.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to
what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of
deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the
totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confmm with ICE's enfOl'cement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Dep01tation
or Removal, it has been detennined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Depotiation or Removal is hereby approved
for a period of one year, until June 2, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

f Se Gallagher
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 57 of 153

Mr. Martin Lumingke·was C/o 'William A. Hahn 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Bosto n. iV{A 02 108
Re: Appl ication l'or a Stay of~or Removal Martin Lumingkewas. ~~

U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
June9,2016

Dear Mr. Lumingkewas:
This l~tter is in response to the liling or Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Dep01tation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 13, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority <.1f an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the Jaw against a particular individual. ICE. like any other law enforcement agency. has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
or enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on difrcrcnt forms and include stays
deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a cnse-by-case basis. after considering the
or totality the circumstances, both positive and negative. and must contorm with ICE's
~nforcement priorities. namely national security, public :mfe' ty, and border security.
of' After careful considemtion of ul l the fac lors addressed in your Application for a Stay
Deportation or Remov<tl. it has been dt:tcrmi ned that the granting of such discrctionury relief is
or warranted in this case. Therefore. your Application tor a Stay Deportation or Removal i~ or hereby approved for a period of one year. unt iI June 8. 2017. At the end that period. the status
of your case will be reviewed for n determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that rime.

Sincerely,

www .ice.g o v

:·:. ·--·· ·--·~···---··.~~"···-~::--~-~-. -~.··:-..~-_....,.. ·.---- -~. ;::·:~~:·;~_~.;<:~~:-~-:::-;-. ~~~~~-~~~~~::--;~?T~-~.:~r~:::.~r:~~:-~:· ~:::~~::--·----

.,:..

:·....... ._:r.,__;r:·:. :•.~:•.~

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/1BS7onsjo!OrcnPeFmaieegnldteaOnf5dfic8Reemoofve1d5O3perations
U.S. Depm1meut of Home!:1 nd Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Mr. Martin Lumingkewas C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.
Hahn and Matkov
36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of~ or Removal Martin Lumingkewas, ~

May31,2017

Dear .tvf.r. Lumingkewas:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 17,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement
agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fotms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must c-onform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have dete1mined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not
sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

,p

-~~" -''Dr6"'

J),--v (
o··

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

w\.vw. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 59 of 153

I

Enforcement (tnd &•mu•·o/ OpcrotioJts

t

Sd.rlon Field Qtfice

f.

!

U.S. Department &f Horne.land Sccllril.y

e t

lCOo District Avenue

~
f.

Burlington, MA 0 1803

I

U.S. Immigration
and Customs

!
I

Enforcemen t

l
p

!

September 11 , 2017

Martin Lumingkewas

I

C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.

I

36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500

~

Boston, MA 02108

i

Re: Appucation for a Stay a~ Removal

~
!o

Martin Lumingke~;vas, , . . _ _

I'

II l

Dear ivtr. Lumingkewas:

This Jetter is in response to the filing of Form 1-246, Application for a Stay of Depotiation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September 7, 2017.
Proseculorial discretion i:s lhe authority of an agen~.;y charged with enforcing u law lo det:id~ to
what degree to enforce the law against a particular individuaL lCE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecntorial discrelion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretiomwy decisions take on different torms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circ\m1stai1ces, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely natioi1al security, public safety, and border security.

I have carefully revie\ved your £I.e, as well as the factors addressed i11 the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have detem1ined that the granting of such discretionary relief is
not sttfliciently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

T<&~.C. M. Cronen Field Office-Director

www.ice.gbv

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 60 of 153
Exhibit NN

' i
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 61 of 153
A-number As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operatfon, the following conditions must be met by your next report in day. There will be no exceptions:
1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS: OFFICE)
2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)
3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.
jl Next report in Date_ 1_-_z,-__-tJlt{-!__ _

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 62 of 153

U.S. Departm ent of Homeland Security 1 m 1rnu•r~11on and Customs Enforcement

File Date :_-1---"''"-;....;:.:..~.~--

on

you were ordered:

(Date of final order)

[ ) Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to Aprill, 1997.
[ x] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

Because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal has not effected your deportation OJremoval during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under the following conditions: ( X) That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of he Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office ofDetention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

(X] That upon request of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, you appear for medical o psyd1iatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

[X] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other

information as the Imrnigratbn and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal considers appropriate.
Ntw f.yt;(:,.,.J.

[X) That you do not travel outside

-New l1m1ipSir e

for more than 48 hours without first having notified the Immigration

(Sv«ify IJ<ographic limits, !l w1Y)

and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal office ofthe dates and places of such proposed travel.

I

[X] That you fumish written notice to Immigrationand Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal of any change ofresidence or employmen.t witl1in 48 hours ofsuch change.
[X] That you report in person on Wednesday November 3'd at 9:00am to this Service office at: 811 Canal Street, /1-Jancltester New Hampshire, unless you are granted written permission to report on another date.

'I
!

[X) That you assist theirrunigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal i

[X] Othoc Bdng an;"'"'"''" in'""' nail" '""f"""

/
/

[ ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions(Continue on se te sheet ifrequired)

(Sign of!CE Official)
,Ult{l "[ I)M\1 9··~ D- o. (Print name d htle of I'NS official)

1owledgment of Conditions of Release under an 01·der of Supervision

read) (had inte1preted and explained to me in the
I understand that failure to comply with
~ ~!.4.u~)

f Jl

language) the contents of

terms of thirorder may subject me to a

9- 2-;u
Dat>.

Fonn l.2:ZOB (Rev. &/14107)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 63 of 153

I

~

~

i

U.S.

Depar

tmen t of H omeland Security and Customs Enfor<-. ement

Alien's N:une

for Fonn: I-220B

I"

I

Alien's Address

(picture) RIGHT INDEX

I

r
I

~

l

·--·-- --

~·
~

f
~
I

~-------------------------P-E_R_so_N__AL_r_u_w_o_RT-R-E-·c_o_RD----------~==================~ I

DATE

OFFICER

COM.MENT/CHANGES

I<

I

i
I
I ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------·------- ~ ~ I l

Signature

I

li ~

Title
Deportation Officer

r
f

~

·. ·:.· .
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 64 of 153
U.S. Depal'tmenf ol' Homeland SccuJ·ity
Enforcement and Removal Office I0 New England Executive Park Drive Burlington, MA 01805
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Greace Mambo ( A C/O William Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont Street Suite 1106 Boston, Jlt!A 02108
Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal
Dear Ms. Greace Mambo,
This is in response to your Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and I -246 application and determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary pe1iod of twelve (12) months from the date of this letter. The granting of this stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.
Vincent Ar ibeque Acting Field Office Director Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal Operations Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 65 of 153
' f ..
partment of Homeland Security Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Executi ve Park Dr.
Burlington, MA 01805
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

_______ .... ·----..---·-- ·- ·- - - - - - - - ..........,
GreaceMAMBO (~
C/0 William Halm, Esq. 1OJ Tremont St S uite #1106 Boston, .MA 02108

- -- .........- - -·---·- - ·..·- -·····-- - -

Re: 1-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear MS. MAMBO,

This is in response to your Enforcement and Removal

Application for Stay Operations Division

of of

Deportation Immigration

or Removal, which was filed with and Customs Enforcement (IC'E).

the

.

I have reviewed your case and 1-246 application and extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval

detennined and have of your request.

determined

that

there

are

Accordingly, as a temporary period

matter of of twelve

discretion your Application for Stay ofRemoval is hereby granted (12) months from the date of this notice. The granting of this stay

for a request

does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

CC: William Hahn, ESQ
~
J
~
J
l
f
l

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 66 of 153

-·, .>rcement and Removal Operatiom Boston Field Office
U.S. Depaa1ment of Homeland SeturiCy I0 New England Executive Pal'lc Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Greace MAMBO C/0 William A. Halm ESQ. 101 Tremont St. Ste. 11 06 Boston, MA 02108
RE: ~~ a Stay of Deportation or Removal

February 17, 2014

Dear Ms. MAMBO:
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed ·with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 4, 2013.
Aft~r careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the grru1ting of such discretionary relief is wananted in this case. Theryf~, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved until February l i;I,Wl5. At the end of that period, the status of your case wiJl be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely, Chris Croncn(A) DFOD

r~

MAY 28 2014

.__-----~------ - - - . .........:>

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 67 of 153
);rcemrmt and Removal DfX!mlions Boston Field Office U10.SN. DewepEanrgtmlanedntEoxfelcluotmiveelPaanrdkSecurity Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
March 3, 2015

Greace Mambo

C/o 101

William A. Hahn Tremont St., Suite

11 06

Boston, MA 02108

RE: AGprepalciceaMtioanmf.boor;a~ Stay of Deportation or Removal

DTfPdaTiSbsehlArRegcpeerhouaoigaeeedcsfeectrssnrvtrhumsehMleeewicieercoer.eyopidtuiswdttd,vtoecy.etthTiooecaasr,oMhsidihrrlUpcatifs,eieeisauraisf.vfoinroeSomlbuiteenftnnpr.ldlifohbeisoroiIaarcraocosmnernacysoc:dssesaderemrean,eperbaecfstyontyierteemuihgin,eedotrdoterygsmuanoeuneae,adnrrrctlidiaatiiatteniaiosaitoenswvalliopnittdoteoyeMhpnidn,aronobaleimnaignssouaaocdacnarrrictoaufcrndidaICatenhtfee-kiashts2oumwdrieelo2to4lsns-hr,uttnob6eafhioefst2cayn,aomyttaucp0-Ahtrdnctrca1soeoitpaidoar6rtfhEfrstpynsf.tieaeSnlhm.cefinftouraecgbAaaoelndaaaryrynartatdnsgecirtnitoremoeseheftwinnm,xfionesocnaiesrDdfveytgeemfrohinatcndevrcelotsipdiIhras(odfiCoeaIancuroSrCsnrEdoftaguitadEyenlat'cett.sroy)shidhiioiuwnanoeodnwcrdItnniefCllitfpriuorlDshJotiEeechdnraberqer,rnegceiRepeuooeultnesoeteirmdiahtkxfsodrmar,oetteeeniyyatnroncafhttsca3aovuotirieonry0tatornpyaeny,lgsfrlrda2tiioeicadotao0salryotSerit1tulRiehhuptao5ttsaferoeihew.feysrrormiaeesttsttfha,lboooattoweyynvifiwmdoofaacaDaenumlireep,recrre.ncoeniapwpcdfulrfnrooayheoomtrrrseivrcettencsdcaoeemthaetadmwiiwtmonnowiifeovchnleoanltnaenahsrtaolsbtt.i.,lrsae

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 68 of 153

l,

rcemefll and Removal Operations

boston Field Office

I

U.S. Depar tment of Homeland Security

I 0 New Englfmd Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

l
!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

I
I

I
j

February 13, 2015

i

Greace Mambo C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont St, Suite. 1106

I

Boston, MA. 02108

II

;

RE: Application for a ~tion or Removal

Greace Mambo ; ~

Dear Ms. Mambo,

This
with

is in response to your I-246, Application for a Stay U.S . Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

of Deportation or Removal, on January 30,2015.

which

was

filed

RAcrpeaeefvsrtmeeiioe.rowdvcTeoaadhlrf,eefofironuterelfhaoaycrdseoeea,nbrtsyee,ireodumnuenrritdanilateaipFttoeipenorlbmnircoiuoafnatfeiarwodylnlh1tfehf2atoa,hcrtt2eotar0hr1tseSh6et.agadryrAaednmortetftioshnsDvegeaedleopnofoidnrrsdtouaeyctfroihtowuhndrialitlorspebcrqereReurieteeoixsomdten,coaftuvohrtyaereldrsaietasalSttihuettahesfyraioetsboftwyyifmoaDaenmp.e·papcnroaotersvtdeaetdwiinoifnlotlbrboiaesr

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 69 of 153

I

·'

EnforcemeJJt and Removal Operations Boston Field Office

I
I
I

U1B0.uS0r.0liDnDgeitpsotanrir,ctMmt AAevnet0no1uf8eH03omeland Securily

I
I
i
f

i

U.S. and

Immigration Customs

l
l

Enforcement

March 18,2016

I

GCL3r/6aoewBaWcrOeoifmlMfliifcaaiememlodbAfoS.HtHraehaehnt,naS,nEudistqMe. 5a0tk0ov Boston, MA 02108
Re: GArpepalciecaMtioanmfboor,aAS•ta•ylolflDiieplolrltation or Removal

I
~
I
I

I

is DTRPweedtheeeADrwnonhse.hanomiffttespfeaarfsoaaotrooporteMletrrleriurrovceccrbtatcdutsereyasanytete.cmmtlteatomo,giaMreoatoeerwrrfidepinefnneoaaynipefttntmlioo.tutrhniahodpurlonbtgeUovirrrotrseichreTe:.occRneoScdimehrrasscnie.ineepsrfoytsmtIfcciesoovi,imoeauedoronaswrhsmenmvslc,aead.Hreean.ssiaipilsltgastt,SaepitomcrTbtohnruairrhitehonceeettcoeihhelesthordyieesroalaeon,aecdsuvnofnffwuaetiiaoabfbhtlecnatrrioeooowiildnyeasloretrng,igiehinCnaoetdtadyaylhnoudieypolnessfdcfeoesuootsiitFaefaosrtssrefcrrimiacona,teoAuaacrinnnsneuvrtmpnioidtsneEpatnpiryeatgoaInselit,td-iernaledfac2tepnnoraMkiaa4mutccrddotehn6cuybiadinaod-e,llnrrnotaincmceAaacemrhnthsteghfspaicsaooinaaeerp1adnyrntgftds7lidigeie(evf,aeciotrfId-veyixeaCa2bnf,Si,rnte0wydEiewtart1o-uaanic)yinc7nnhtanytiodoha.sgelduf.nestofbeorehooAFoinfrmenftbrfAetIDransdoauiCbtnputesershsrShEcipcprtuestiet,hlohsaa,naiecernrcreygadltoynceadiafiudkntomoatst1ierefircofi6ioooolrdnrtanDv,neyrifcacw2nmta.nloetif0oaulhoypnort1dranoooysrw6etairRrodd.drctpiataeyteeosehehtmrtcrureiSraiioirnreoywotdIsnaglCvsdeeiliyaael,otEtllowhoforto'bheifsfissfee

I
I
iI
I
~
j!
~
'I
~ B

executed at that time.

WY.'W.iCe.gO\'

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 70 of 153

f

I

EBnofsotorcnemPieenfdt aOnfdficRel!mot;a/ Operatiom

UIB0.uS0r.0liDnDgeiptsotarnri,ctMmt AAevnet0no1uf8eH03omeland Security

I
I

UaEn.nSdf. oICnrcu1esmmtoigemrnasttion

l
l.

February 22, 2016

I
I

I

GC3B6r/ooeBsatWcoroeniml,MliMfaaimemAldbA0oS2. tH1re0ae8ht,nS, Euistqe.500

I

Re: AGprpealicceatMioan1nfobro,a~ ~~tion or Removal

I

DTRPweedetheerAnnDowhaehibnomfsftrpfaesfoeaeoatoooretMpllrenrreievcrrccore·tbactdtureayearvtsyenemltetmct,.ioamtgireaoeoaMertwerwriiedpeinfnnoeasineapettftlnio.muthtrdinhaodnlprtoUgbeofivrrtsorreoicThee.ceornSR:oecdimrhsrcsainne.}eieryuotXtsfImcdsici,monive1euoaedorhatnsmnsmteicsv,lealede.rearisnsi.aFismgltsattapeS,otircmtTiohnabhrruintenotetcmheecaihteslohehtiyeaseailoonaroa,rcuedsnnffwynuaftieaahoblnbtacirt2ooorodneiyliea1orlrfsetgi,ghiiCn,wnato2datayyoluhnhi0edlponsfedseoc1eotstsuFitiotfe7ashtssef·0mcciir.aaerto1eauArnmcirsenmv.rAttpmtiosieEahpitnptorygIaaenesl-,ttnerdfaiahd2rtconpnekieae4aarccudtmedn6cthoyubeide,doanolnlmnroacitnAvdecmrhenatasegphasfolsnacioarpeaednfyoatgtrflddisitrieeg(vfhecdeIiatdfre~vCaayexeiabnt,itrSr,wenEidyeorapttwu)-niaicaynn,etnanciytiohdrslogLadfiluesfnoooebrbooedrnifomFertf,frAIbmaeDodeCustiabhnruxpesseSsEcrercteppiutti,shcahanoslasucneyketgrtald1octdayiafekitoanouattusdetiefrrJfcioisorldi6onaratDnri,yeanoccwtmnnt.o2leftaifuophy0ynoortdrnoao1ysorweit6raoRuddtctri.taarieteeohysmthrctmieucaSiorieranrydeontI.ssgaCselveeliyoaaeEttohwwlorof'oeffsiiilsfsl

f

Sjncerely,

Sean Field

Gallagher Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 71 of 153

I

Enjorcemelll and Removnl Operation:;

l

Boston Field Office

UB!0.uS0r.0liDnDgeitpsotanrir,ctMtmAAevne0tn1ou8fe0H3omeland Security

I

I

l

April 26, 2017

l l

f

GC36/roeBaWcroeimlMlifaaiemmldbAoS. tHreaehtn, ~SuEistqe.500

I

Boston, Ml\ 02108

Re:

Application for a S~on or Removal Greace Mambo, A-

DTRPdaTSbehseIrDegsTehuaooimguehscreehcstrnfuahopsehMeefclvrevcioreeyipcdeesuarttd,io.ytettlteiecaioo,sc,Mshsnrati·irpwcaittsnrieiaoluiraeisvioysneomnltbfehtfnupadliwibooislopnrUiacolrrosanpycna:.csrsRraeSerdrereraeraaee!.ecfyiltnntmevIpmuhifemttiodtoeeryogeaononedm,vwadrcsml.iataaieiicaeisngslwvld,toirTdttehoahanody,hinabtenisoiaesgsaodtoacmdnharctnurAed1ideaaentcaefkhpsthsiimnfrieesopltaiodes-ilrluvoniob,eaiinCecstncynaygtaa.upu-sdtdcnracosieowiaiordottftfotsfynenefiaemmec.nlfFnlfrounbsooaerlaaairrynaEmnsgsmrtenieatesfdhn·fwi,xoonISce-ateirdryth2tfmrfcajhtc4aaveycesict6miIhrstdC,toeaaocheurnfErAoneagisdnDltt'ep.sgas(dipeiridInneadplCwdcIinneocClErtfitruraehioti)Ettndshenari,sogeocgteeinonelnodsotirmhFntfkdfafioeeeenioysrnobnrtsudaatorrtchunnratopRhyaeyagfrlrSeiidAcydaotomtiyoaeprts2lohyuipcpato3vreroilwef,seiraor2cestttlfithaa0,looaittoe1Dnniiswdoof7aaceennhm.rjepceryencofieonrodfurrlerfoyretemobarrlarycettinscoieemtoaSedfamwtnmtoeniiasoenvchyeonnaieannretalsotto..d,lft.

I
I

Sincerely, ~ CFi.e1l1d.OCfrfoinceenDirector

f
I
I I

www.ice.gov

I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 72 of 153
Exhibit OO

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 73 of 153

U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement File

Name: -7~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~----------------~D~.~O.B=·--~·~~~~~-!CZ_.__________C,~~·O~·~B~I~n~d~o~n~es~ia~

on_-/-.rt-"11+-....0.:::..kc. y. ou were ordered:
ale of nal Ot'der)

[ ] Exc:luded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to Aprill, 1997. [ x ] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after Aprill, 1997.

Because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal bas not effected your deportation Olfemoval during the period prescribed by Jaw, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under the following conditions:

[X) That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of he immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

I

[X] That upon request ofthe Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal, you appear for medical t> psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.
[X] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and suc;:h other

!
I

information as the Immigratbn and Customs Enforcement <(\ffice of Detention nnd Removal considers appropriate.

[X] That you do not travel outside

M~~ri: rLe~x

for more than 48 hours without ftrst having notified the Immigration

(Specify geographic limits, if any)

and Customs Enforcement Oftice of Detention and Removal office of the dates and places of such proposed travel.

[X) That you furnish written notice to Immigrationand Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal of any change ofresidence or employment within 48 hours of such change.

[X] That you report in person on Wednesday November 3'd at 9:00am to this Service office at: 811 Cmwl Street, il'frmcllester New Hnmpsllire, unless you are granted written pem1ission to report on another date.
[X} TI1at you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal i.n obtaining any necessary travel douments.

[X] Other: Bring all interpreter ill your native lrmg11age

[ ] See attached sheet containing otber specified conditions (Coulinuc on separale sheet irrOQuirtd)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

1 hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the

language) the contents of

-~,s~~~o~~e.:)j. ----=-oaf-~~~~ this order, a copy ofwhich has
fme, dete~ pwsecut;on.

been given to me.

1 understand that failure to comply

with the tenns ofthis>rder may subject me to a
~)

\l1Cllt10CJ. <GUJ')

Fonn l-220B (Rev. 8114

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 74 of 153
U.S. Department of Homeland S ecurity and Customs Enforcement

Alien 's Signature

(picrure) RIGHT INDEX PRINT

DA TE

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD OFFICER

Signature

Title
Deportation Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 75 of 153
A-number As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the following .conditions must be met by yom· next report in day. There will be no exceptions:
1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FE.ES (BURLINGTON, :MASS OFFICE)
2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)
3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED .
.·/
sign 'Z/C:ti:r:(-.<<:---s~~:~'-· ··- '',
·-:----..
Next ;eport in Date_ _lv_[.;.__g.,f/-_-l_fl__

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 76 of 153
li.S. Department of H(lmeland Secu1·ity
Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Executive Park Drive Burlington, MA 01805

Sonny Mambo ( A C/O William Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont Street Suite 1106 Boston, MA 02108

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Mr. Sonny Mambo,

This is in response to yom· Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

I have reviewed your case and I -246 application and determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request.

Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period of twelve (12) months from the date of this letter. The granting ofthis stay request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you. .

.0cerely, &IO
\ »~c~teque ·

!I
~
~-

Acting Field Office Director Depmiment of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal Operations Boston Field Office

. '

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17- "~P:lratmgenet o7f H7omoefla1nd5S3ecurity

.nforcement and Removal Office

I0 New England Executive Park Dr.

Burlington, MA 01805

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(.41···___ ·-----·--- ·---.....
Sonny MAMJJO C/0 William Hnltn, Esq.
101 Tremo11tSt. Suite #1106 Boston, MA 02108

_____ .......____,, __OO_T.. 2.._, _2__20_1_2_____,..

_ _ , .

, _.......

Re: 1-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Mr. MAMBO,
This is :in response to your Application for Stay ofDeportation or RemovaJ, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division ofhrunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and 1-246 application and determined and have determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval ofyour request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period oftwelve (12) months from the date of this notice. The granting ofthis stay request does not confer any immigration stahls or benefit to you.

~~~FiDeolrdo Of~f'i-,~;Nu!eicl~ toers .
Boston Field Office I ICE-ERO

CC: William Hahn, ESQ

••• r ..
.- '

.··.·.

. . ... ..· .·.. .

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 78 of 153

Ei!{orc.:ment mul Deponali(lll Operafiom Boston f'ield Office
L'.S. D<.'partmcnt of Jlomchmd Security I0 Ne11· Et\giand Exccutiv~ Park BLJrlingtnn, MA 0 1803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

February 17, 20 14
Sonny Mambo C/0 William A. Hahn, Esquire Law Offices of Hahn and Matkov 101 Tremont S treet, Suite 1106
Boston, MA 02108
•••Ill RE · Application for a Stay ofDeportation or Removal Sonny Mambo, A
Dear Mr. Mambo,
This is in resp onse to your Applicatio n lor a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which wa'i filed with U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (IC E) on November 04, 2013 .
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or R emova l, it has bee11 detc nn incd that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, yom application for a Stay of D eportation or Removal is heteby approved for a period of one year, until February 16, 20 l5. A t the end of that period, the status of your case will be rev iewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Lie~~ Sine~··
(A) Deputy Field Office r Director
Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 79 of 153
ifEl1jorcemcnt and Removal Operations
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 10 New England Executive Drive Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
u.s. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement

Sotmy Mambo C/o Willian A. Hahn 101 Tremont St, Suite 1106
Boston, MA 021 08
RE: Application for a
Sormy Mambo,

March 3, 2015 or Removal

Dear Mr. Mambo: This is in response to your 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 30,2015. Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a taw to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutoriaJ discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary de-Cisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the facto rs addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Depm1ation or Removal is
hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 2, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 80 of 153
Enforcemellt and Removal Operarions Boston Field Office
U.S. Depa11mcnt of Homeland Security I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 0)803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Sonny Mambo
C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.
Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a ~rtation or Removal Sonny Mambo, ~

March 18, 2016

Dear MI. Mambo:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcemen t (ICE) on February 16, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a patiicular individuaL ICE, like any other law
enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
enforcement. These discreti onary decisions take on diffe rent forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE' s enforcement priorities, namely nationaJ security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of
Depo1iation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is
hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be
executed at that time.

www.ice.gov

\ { .

\·
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docu\ment 37-3

Filed 10/03/17

Page 81 of 153

:orcemelll mrd Removal Operations

., "ston Field Office

U.S. Department of H omeland Secu r ity 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 0 1803

I~·

Sonny Mambo C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500

April 26, 2017

I

r

I

Boston, MA 02108

Re: Application for a ~nor Removal Sonny Mambo , ~

I

l

Dear Mr. Mambo:

This letter is in response t.o the filing of Form 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 23, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforci ng a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circmnstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for.a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,
c-"" .c}G~
~ C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 82 of 153
Exhibit PP

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 83 of 153
t'
/Department of Homeland Security

Hgration & Customs Enforcement
t'

Order of Supervision

, NAME: Eddy PANJAITAN
on ---->!.JUL~:..!..Y...3.~2~0 1~>.3.::,.....__ __, you were ordered:
(Date of final~)

FILE:
DATE:
NOV 0 6 2013

Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April I , 1997. X Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April!, 1997. Because the Service has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pennitted to be at large under the following conditions:

[x ] That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of the Service, for identification and for depo1tation or removal.

[ x} That upon request of the Service, you appear for medical or psychiatric examiJ1ation at the expense ofthe United States Government.

[ x] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circmnstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other · infonnation as tbe Service considers appropriate.

J1f'/,-That you do not travel outside

NEW ENGLAND STATES
(Specify geographic limits, if6llY)

having notified this Service office of the dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.

for more than 48 hours without fLrSt

( xJ That you fum ish written notice to this Service office ofany change ofresidence or employmeut within 48 hours of such change.
(X] That you report inpe.rson on the ---~-..;___""-~-~-~=----\_o_W__ ______ to this Service office at: unless you are granted written permission to report on another date. .. [x ) Tba! you assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in obtaining any necessary travel documents.

[x ] Other: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ON OR BEFORE N OVE.iVIBER 16, 2013 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS EJ\"rFORCEMENT (ICE) VALID TICKETS SHOWING INTENDED DEPARTURE FROM THE UNITED STATES. YOUR TRAVEL MUST COIVIMENCE VIA BOSTON's LOGAN INTRNATIONAL ArnPORT, AND MUST TAKE PLACE ON OR BEF@ DECE MBER 6th, 2013. FAILURE TO DO
SO MAY RESULT JN YOUR DETENTION AND REMOVAL FROM THE UN1TED'S'YATES BY Tins AGENCY.
[x ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Continoe en arate sheet if

Timothy Stevens I SDDO / 11AN
(Print name ar.d title of ICE official)
Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 84 of 153

Enforcement cmd Removal Operations Boston Pield Office

g
f

1

U.S. Department ofHomeland Se1:urity 1000 District Avenue

I

Burlington, MA 01803

Eddy Panjaitan C/o Willian1 A. Hahn, Esquire
36 Bromfield Street
Boston, MA 02108

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

I
l

February 10,2017

I

Re: Application for a.~or Removal Eddy Panjaitan, ~

Dear Mr. Panjaitan:

TRheimsolvetatle,rwisithinUr.eSs.pIomnmseigtorattihoenfailnidngCousftoFmorsmEnI-f2o4r6ce, mAepnptli(cICatEio)nofnoFreabrSutaaryy

of Deportation 03, 2017.

or

wPeetdeonnrenhotffpfaaoosoolterrrirccctctdyeeuaeemmttmoigooereerfinnenante1ttot. hpardtegroiriesTeonccmrherciineertoycitfsv,eioueosahrm,nlca.dnsesiitassaSmptcntuhrrhceoeceeelhtsyiselao,dacnunewuatabchttrooiimyosartihniigoadatalnylepisndcsoosiieasssftcriciteaourianvnremitestpaiyaoga,dtanreapetnnkiuadcceobnuyndllnioaccaemnrhgscaaaaiadrnyftgsiiedvfeeteify-edvxeb,,ireywdaer-aunncicnatditahsdlse.bfeeoominrbrtmfIduaoiCensssrirEtcstsi,a,hnceneagocldfiunoktarfeeriiordltnayriccamnw.olnaunyrtdsywoeiodicdttesohhertuceianirrIydsgCseelaEthotowo'esff

InodohefntaDivseeeudpf.cofariTctraeihetfeinuortlenllyyiosrrwenRvaoireeramawpnopetvedeaadyll.,ofart1oTnrmdh_feiIltehhA,iaspavsdpeelwidcceeiastlteilioroamnsn.itnfhoeerdfatahcaStottratshyeaodgfdrarDenestispneogdrtoianftistohunec hoAdrpiRpscleircmeatoitoivonanal rfyiosrrhealeiSreetfabiyys

Sincerely,
~-~~
C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 85 of 153
Etijorcement and Removal Operations Bos/on FieldOffice

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

1000 District Avenue

·

Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

March 18,2016

Eddy Panjaitan C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Eddy Panjaitan, ~

Dear Mr. Panjaitan:

Thls letter is in response to the tiling of Form 1-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal , with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE ) on February 16,2016.

Prosecutodal discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, an d border security.

After careful consideration of Deportation or Removal, it has

all the factors been detem1ined

addressed in your Application for a that the granting of such discretionary

Stay relief

of is

warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Depot1ation or Removal is

hereby approved for a period of one status of your case will be reviewed

year, until March 17, 2017. At for a determination of whether

the t he

end of that period, the
removal order will be

executed at that time.

~~ ·an Gallagher
Field Office Director

w w w .ice.go v

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 86 of 153 Enforc~menl cmd Re'I'IIOI'tJI Op.Jralion:; BosJ0/1 Field Office UI0.SN. DewepEnnrgtmlancdntEoxfeHctoJmticvle~PulclrlkSecurity Burlington, MA 01803

February f2, 2015

Eddy Panjaiian

Cto William A. Hanh,

B10o1stTorne,mMoAn,.t

St, Suite 02108

Esq. 1106

RE:

Ap_plication for S~on or Removal Eddy Par~aitan; ~

Dear
This with

Mr. Panjaitan, is in response to your the U.S. Immigration

Ia-n2d46C,uAstponp1liscaEtniofontcfoerh1Setnayt (oICf DE)epoonrJtaatniounaryot2R3e, m20o1v5a.l,

which

was

filed

ARcpreaeefvsrtmeeiioer.owdcv·Uaeoar1dlef,efofriuotenlrfheocaayroseden,beasyetrieedo;rnueumrnrdatiaeitnliptoaepFntrileroinbocnirafnutoaeialofdrlnwyftahfh1ocae1rttto,hatr2hes0Srea1.ttgadh6yrde.aronreAetsfimtsnDetgohdevepoiao·nfelrnsyot\da,orltcdiuohoerfnrdtrihweo~qarciturURepebte~sirmteoifeonooxdavr,reaayclfhurSieestteHashdyteea.arfoteitursbtsDhywoaeaatfpprtyoripmaorrtnuoaet:rve.tiedcodanisnfeootwrfbiaisll be

Sincerel¥ •.

Sean: . allagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/1~Jr7cemePnlaagndeR8em7ovoalfO1pe5ro3lio!IS
~ vswr Field Office
ll.S. Deparlment of H omeland SecUJ·it)• I0 New England Exenuiv~ Park 13urli ngwn. MA 01803

U.S. hnn1igration
and Customs
Enforcement
February 7, 2014

Eddy Panjaitan c/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Halm & Matkov I 01 Tremont Street, # 1106 Boston, Massachusetts 021 08
Re: Application for Stay of~r Removal Eddy PANJAITAN, A~

Dear Mr. Panj aitan:

This with

is in response to your I-246, Application for Stay U.S . Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)

of Depmtation on November

or Remov 12, 2 013.

al,

which

was

fi

led

PdaTSbgerouhogetcesnhrsheecepecdyoude,tstoichosiiatcresiirsvinaoeefpltnoirdasoronicnssadeaecrrecrntyehuemtetigdooaaelrnadctiiaweivislseoiado,tnghinasaeasncinrdatceasuamtkttsihoeeauon-ospbrtnaiaytcnry-dtodciiacnofmsufffeeolaararenybrmnaiaestnwgxidfseeoi,inrtvnhaccinifydIstseCuecraaEhilnct.a'odsirnnIgieCsentnihdEcdfelo,ewurroldciiirknetedhegmsientateanahnnyrfeytyostproooccrtfotihianoudelgrrieritsptyaeJiaoeolowsrat,ffwaentethniantoeofmfonocderrioceclryreccemuiImndemaeemetnnsitottotoa.vnnwaacllhe. as,t security, public safety, and border security.
in IsSnutpaytpeoosurratnAodfpptthhleiischaaatpiropdnlsihcfoaiptriodaneS,ptomarytaaiotnifloyDnyewpouoouthtlaadtvioceancuiostreedRtoethmyaootuvyraoclu,hyhiloadvureeandt.wdorecshsialdnruemn bboerrnoifnfathcetoUrsnited

RActhaefastmeet .rpoecvTraaihrole,edfri,uet lfthhocaerosens,btsyaeiotedunmesrdaosetfittaoeyynromiuosirfnhcaeealdrlseettbhhwyeatiaflatplhcpbetreoogrrvrseaevandditeidfnworgeresdoosneffeodsuryicnaehaydrdoe,itumsercr1rmrteieltiqinFouaenetbaisorrtuynfaororreyflaiw6eS,fht2eais0tyh1woe5raf.rDtrhAaeentprttoeehmrdetaioetnvinotdahnlioosofrrd.er will be executed at that time.

Sincere ly,
~b·r
-i-1.(' Sean Gallagher
Field Office ~irector

l
~
I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 88 of 153
Exhibit QQ

,. /( !
./

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 89 of 153

.S. Department ofHomeland Security

nmigration and Customs Enforcement
·arne: Cbc~~~~ol\ :\)E~\\.JK_'(
1 ;~J~o ~~~ou were ordered: (D~te or final order)

-

Ord~

File No

Date: ~ .3 \

1

'a I :xo D.O.B.

J {

\:l.t-6
I

C.O.B Indonesia

[ ] Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to Aprill, 1997. [ x) Removed pursuant to proceedings conunenced on or after Aprill, 1997.

ecause the Immigration :riod prescribed by law,

and
it is

CorudsetoremdsthEantfyoorcuebmeepnltaOceffdicuenodef rDseutpenertivoinsioann.danRdempeonvnailttheadstnoobt eefaftelcatregdeyuonudredretphoerftoaltlioown ionrgrecmoonvdaitlidounrsi:ng

the

)(]

That you appear in Office of Detention

person at the time and place specified, upon each and and Removal, for identification and for deportatioP or

every request removal.

ofhe

Immigration

and

Cus1

oms

Enforcement

~

That upon request examination at the

ofthe Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office expense of the United States Govemme11t.

o f D ete n tion

and

Removal,

you

appear

for

medical

o psychiatric

~] TinhfaotrmyoautipornoavsidtheeinImfomrmigartaiotinonunadnedrCouasthtoambsouEtnfyoorucermnaetniotnOaflfiticye, coifrcDuemtesntatniocnesa,nhdaRbietsm, oavssaolccioantisoindse,rasnadpparcotipvriitaitees. and such o1her

:] That you do not.travel outside

s "\-A-ros . ~WQ")' JRz"~ 'prh!f9
(Specify googrnphie limits, ifany)

for more than 48 hours without first having n otified the Immigration

and C..'ustoms Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal office of Ihe. dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.

and ~]_Th~-you n1n1ish writte:o) •lo~cc to lril1~~iol'r=d-€trnt0l!:IS""Enfol''Cejn6ut employment within 48 hours of such change.

Office

ofDetention

Removal ofany change ofrcsirlence or

:] That you report in person on Wednesday October 6th 'ampshtre, unless you are granted written pem1ission to report

at 9:00am to on another'date.

this

Service

office

at:

·811

Canal

Street,

Manch ester ·

New

~} Thatyou assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal in obtaining any necessaty travel donment~.

:] Other: Bring an interpreter in. vour native languagg__

See attached sheet contajning other specified conditions (Continue on sepumte 1heet ifrequir

(Signature of IC6 OfficiaV
. R.. MO~,t-.J . ._~,A""C"1otJ {Print••rne Jd title ~fiNS officW)-

cx-'--fl.C:

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Retease under an Order of Supervision

tereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had i order, a copy of which has been given to 1e, etenti , or prosecution.

interpreted and explained to me roe. I understand that failure to

in the ~\.>\:\
~omply with the terms
~

o

f

th

language) the contents of hmder may subject me to a

----"=-~~~=-~·~

~Z>I ll20cO

Form I·220ll (Rev. 8/14/0?)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 90 of 153

U.S. Depar tment ofHon1c}a:nd Security

-M-~n~__N_~-c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~LAF~- Numb~ ' DM~~?\ ~ ~~ .~ ~ Inun~ igrati~ on an~ d Cu~ stom~ sEn~ force~ ment~~~~~~~~~ - ~~-~~ · C~ ont~ inua~ tion~ Pa- gefo~ r Fo~ nn: ~I-~ 220l~ l ~

~\..),e_""( { c_\'\ y-\ s-\- \~

. -

. c-::. ,,....,. . '-l

A lien's Signature Alien' s Address
Alien's Teler)hone Number (ifany)

(picture)

.• II
!

IUGHT INDEX PRINT

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD
.-.- Jfwfo";:~~~-0-.~,.--F-~~-~fi-R-4!.-.-.-_1-__F.e~P.J_r__-t;~>'<" un iii;!CW.NG~S- ~->~,=- -~-J. ·...- --

2-1-ll Yepoy-.k.J Ii-i? re.quwec./ N.e.-y~ C<~cl/+- S\3\ll

S-3- H

NA..'k XjL\ZCJ I\

C:ficer intials:
N!:"'Xt report date:~~'ll\\

ITitle Dcportntion Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 91 of 153

\
ChristianPENTURY (- -) C/0 William A. Hahn, Esq. 1()J Tremont St. Suite #1106 Boston, MA 02108

U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Executive Park Drive Burlington, MA 01805

Dear Mr. PENTURY,

This is in response to the Application for Stay ofDeportation or Removal filed by you dated November 3, 2010.

You are a native and citizen of INDONESIA who entered the United States on April26, 1997 as a nonimmigrant. In 2003, you were issued a Notice to Appear charging you with being removable from the United States pursuant to Section 23 7 (a)(l )(B) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (ACT). On March 30, 2004 the Immigration Judge (IJ) in Boston, MA granted you Voluntary Departure, a decision which you appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On August 22, 2005, the BIA dismissed your appeal and affirmed the IJ's order. As 1.1 result, your voluntary departure period was extended for 60 days until October 22, 2005, however, you have failed to leave the U.S. as ordered.

rPrlorl

~d M

You are now requesting ICE to exercise favorable discretionary relief from removal to allow new counsel to adequately assess your case and pursue an appropriate fonn ofrelieffi·om removal. However, in

)tvaJcdhee1·
~to CC·
'eewE 1ailro

weighing the factors in your case, I have concluded that the favorable exercise of discretion is not merited. Currently, there is no administrative relief available to you and this office will not consider any claimed eligibility for future relief from removal that must be addressed by the EOlRIBIA. Io addition,

dcJre:
·ace oJ '
entu arlilil fl.

your application fails to present any new facts or substantial equities that have not already been considered in your case that woul.d warrant the granting of your application. Lastly, I am satisfied that you have been accorded due process of law and afforded every opporttmity to apply for relief from removal throughout your immigration proceeding. Therefore, after careful consideration, your request

IIIQI

for a stay of deportation or removal is hereby denied as a matter of discretion. Due to your voluntary

participation with Operation Indonesian Surrender, ICE will grant you a period of90 days from the date of this order in which to settle your affairs and complete your departure from the United States.

'\ l

f

. I'

.·. ~I
. i.l.

I
!
~
~

.~,

\
I,

' f

l

~
~

I

~

I

I

I

i

v · ce c beque
Acting Fie d Office Director I Boston, MA ERO CC: William Hahn, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docu\ment 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 92 of 153

····· ·-- ··· ~~

U.$. l>cl':o'·tuwnt nf HtiiJtdamfSet•urily ~ II Cnnul Street
fl.luncllc::stcr. New Hnmp~hirc (1.110 I
U.s: liiiri1igT<i.tion

~~ij .and Custorns Enforcement ~f!-IND sc;~~
~oe ,J>_. _..,.y'}/.

CCh/0risWtiial1l1iaPmenAtu. rHy (Aa~ hn~
1OJ Tremont St. Suite #1106 Bosftm, MA 02108

'

( -zj) \

·
t L-.--

Dear Sir I Madame,
T he purpose of this letter is to r equest you come to our office for an interview on January 31, 2012 at
09:00am to discuss your pending cnse.
If you have any questions prior to the date of your interview you may contact the ICE-ERO Duty Officer
in Manchester, NH@ 603-625-5276 x3. Please have your alien registration number ready to assist the ofticer with the review of specitic infmmation relative to your immig ration case.

CC: William Hahn, ESQ
': ·.. . .. :.: ·. : ' · '! .. .

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docu\ment 37-3

Filed

10/03/17 J.S.

DePpaartgmeent9o3r Hoomf e1la5nd3Sccurirr

81 I Canal Str~<Ct

Manchester. New Hampshire 03101

U.S. Immigration and Customs .Enforcement

Dear Sir I Madame,
The purpose of this letter is to infonn you that on or before FEBRUARY 10111, 2012 you are required to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) valid tickets/itinerary showing intended departure
from the United States. Your travel MUST commence via Boston's Logan International Airport, and
must take place on or before MARCH 30,2012. Additionally, you are required to provide ICE officers with your valid travel document BEFORE your scheduled date of departure. If you have any q uestions prior to the date of your departure from the United States, you may contact the ICE-ERO Duty Officer in Manchester, NH@ 603-625-5276 x3. Pl~as~ hav~ yuur alit:n rt:gislratio u number ready to assist the officer with the review of specific information relative to yom immigration case.
Timothy Stevens Supervismy Detention and_. eportation Officer Manchester, NH Sub-Office I ICE-ERO
CC: William Hahn, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docu\ment 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 94 of 153
J .S. Dcp u tment of Homel~ nd ~curity Enforcement and Removnl Office
I0 New Euglond E..~ecutive Park Dr. Burlington, MAOJ805
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Christian PENTURY (A

)

C/0 William A. Hahn, Esq.

101 TremontSt. Suite#Jl06

Boston, JYJA 02108

Dear Mr. PENTURY,

T his is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation o Enforcement and Removal Operat ions Division oflmrnigration

r Removal which was filed and Customs E nforcement

w ith the (ICE).

I have reviewed your case and ICE on February 6, 2012 and I approval of your request.

I-246 have

ap pl ica tion determined

as well as the results ofyour in-person interview that there are extraordinary circumstances which

with warrant

Accordingly, as a matter of d iscretion temporary period until November 15, status or benefit to you.

your Application for Stay 20 12. The granting of this

of Removal is he request does not

reby granted for a confer any immigrat

ion

CC: William Hahn, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 )cPpaartmgeent9or5Hoo1f111cla5nd3Security
Enforcement and Removal Office I0 New England Executive Park Dr.
Burlington, MA0 1805

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcen1ent

Cltristiall PENTURY (~
C/0 William A. Halm, Esq.
101 Tremollt St. Suite #1106 Bostott, MA 02108

MAY 1 0 2013

Dear Mr. PENTURY,

This is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal which was :filed with the Enforc.ement and Removal Operations Division oflmmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I have reconsidered your case and I -246 application and detem1ined that circumstances exist that are beyond those an alien ordered removed would normally face which warrant the granting of your request.
Accordingly. as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay ofRemoval is hereby granted for a temporary period until May 9, 2014. The granting of this request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

ri(\_ Sincerely,

1"'\lll'\ ..

Dorothy Herr~~

Field Office Dire<Jmtothy H$r.oi:'il·Nik-s

Boston Field Office I ICE-ERO

CC: Wi1Iiam Hahn, ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 lepPaartmgeent9of6Hoomfe1lan5d3Security
Enforcement and Removal Office 10 New England Executive Park Dr.
Burlington, MA 01805

U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement

ClzristianPENTURY ~
c/o Attorney William Hahn 101 Tremont Street Suite #1106 Boston,MA 02108

MAR 2 7 2013

Dear Mr. Pentury,

This is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal filed by you on September 27, 2012.

You are a native and citizen of Indonesia who entered the United States in October of 1997 as a non-inunigrant visitor. A review of your agency case file shows that you have been ordered to depart the United States (U.S.) by an hnmigration Judge, the Board oflnunigration Appeals, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. To afford you an opportunity to address the medical care of your father, hmnigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) granted a temporary stay of removal to you on February 7, 2012 that was set to expire in November of2012. Most recently, you filed a new I-246 application on September 27, 2012 requesting additional time to remain in the U.S. to continue caring for your father as referenced in your previous 1-246 applications ft.led in 2010 and 2012.

FolJowing a thorough review of all the evidence regarding you case, I have concluded that a continued stay ofremoval in your case is not merited. I am satisfied that you have been accorded due pro'cess of law and afforded every opportunity to apply for relief from removal throughout your immigration proceeding. Therefore, after careful consideration, your latest request for a stay of deportation or removal is hereby denied as a matter of discretion. Due to your voluntary participation with Operation Indonesian Surrender, you are granted 30 days from the date of this letter to provide this agency with tickets and an itinerary showing your intended departure from the U.S. on or before April l, 2013.

e~ \" ~

~orothy errer

v

Field Office Director

Boston Field Office I ICE-ERO

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 97 of 153
HH,.~:;~.r,te!'"J. ~"1:· N;;,t:r-l:rf· · ·=_,,t-.·,.. ! ; -..~·
Bwlo.o;. F!aia' CtQlc~
u,s, D~f;l'irtr;lvt~f or. 11.()'•;••1.; '"1 \'it;·<> t ::.;·
1lt N~·N e:"!U~iUi.d 5:.t(' !U~:-~ ·. ;:··._·,:·
T:h.lri iH!l~!);t, M,.:. o!·~r):j

Chtisti;;m :PENTURY C/O; \Vi.Hie.m Hahn, E.;!.q. ~ 4 SeoolJd.Stt~et So.tner.swo:r.th, NH 03 M78

':::'bh if. in 1.\~'H~:i;'.r:t·~t~: t-o )'(·t\r .A,ppiir<~tbn fbr r1. 8Ut.y .:~f Dt!por::,·~;k:a C<xR;r.nt'lr.!, 1vb.i<::1·~·:.::;::; -.~,i.-::J ·,..:,;;. 'U.S . :2.mr.t~~m.tJnn :-md C1J:;toms Eruoroou:u~,tlt (ICE) cr1 ~YI~w 1. :\ :tOl4.

Ai.'t~;;.: •:~r:fd GO!.t$itl.~ra.tioo o:f \i!.U the ~.c~ors addrelS-S~;d in .Y\i'J.r t~:qne-st ibr ~\ 5t~;rt :JJ~ Y/r.~::·:;::f;..~\t.·i?. ;.,_.:

.s. .:,.. .. .: , ~J.:.'.,.~;t•.(............,.·,.i-"v'!.:r~,.~:..1,~

~ "'
: .\.

~-~~ .l.h.f•)

l;"'h,,':}.,..Hj,l

~-~'.:.l.'..-,.1 \(·vb•~.·,,.,J:.,.:..,h:,.L'1~.':-':~.

· ~;;J.:~~!,.

~L-1.t,.z.·'n.,;

~,~J.<y'j~~ -o ;. •....1.~,;·.~....

v'·.·.t-••

(
.,;

-•',~Jc.·-L. ;-rt~

'..~J;.j&-.i.'.;.~·,'_·,.~t\.·lt•·.Lf..V·~1-~.f..r.Y.v..)~

:.....·,.:d,1.~'.t.:-.,!...;.;.· J,.~

j·nJ:'"~r-..~.·:-.:..-...: ,~ l..••-.,·~;. :~:;. .•.

·

. t

~ ;\

;•..

fbl' "' .,.,..r.:". . :~1~.t\•.~~.,-.

"1t~-h..·<'u-.~.~~f... v..:,--·'f(f•-:

v", .t,..1.1,.':.'.

t·r·=.: ."..kt-''l·\!.l.'j,'.

~r:.-,~~:·~
o,;•. , ...... .

..__ _

"'' ~~~~h·'Y ,..•1.{"~ .D..·...•··~·rr;•""'r·~~.. .·...'~·.i.~,., n. . . . ;-">--r '.'..I)'\.·lV:i...."L'.'\'.'J't.'t·,~,·l· .<.>\.l<.. )~..,:,...•.;a ~ • •

'·1·11'·!..,..,..,. ·:. ,...;;., .,...., ~.iJ.

... 7 2(11.·'\ ,\ ,· •'h<• .. l~
c. wil1 z.. _ .,

,

•~.",. ~.:t'"~r~<l)~.l,.'..·

·'

•

.. !

~ 1"..... \ ....loW" -~"-;..1-.d-... ,.....,.;..: 1..1."..~. 1'-.:":.:•~'• r~ -·---·~r1..,.........;~}, u1.;..~~, .'.J.f.r,'r.~.".'.:.~'.~... \.'.)..r.. ~.l·v·"'u' 't .~....,.e

t~ n<:~ :·.;::':, !.::.• .

detenniimtion (!'] ·v.;h~~tl.l.el'.tbc rF.m,:rval c)l'der v-;ill be exee.u;~d rt.: 'ili~t time.

l

I

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBSNanDcyoKcournimnkeienwtic3z7-3FuxF:6i1le7-dt.812-0d3/80(3/17 PDeacge1 2908l5 oli5f 1325t>r3.! ''l:tl thif.'J

Enfor,entrnl a11d llamol'(l{ Of/tr..1iic'l.l Bo.stor. Fidd Ojjlct
ti.S. Department ofllorrl~h>~!; :~(,, ·,·i\v 10 New !.ill!llll.lld he.:u1hoe ;;a•i: · Burlil~t~OII. MA Ol t.Ol

~~~..~ U.S. Immigration

.~..

·
...

~

and Custonts
Enforcement

·

November 25, 2015

Christian Pentury Cl<> William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Broomtleld Street, Suite 500 Bostcm, MA 02108
Re: Application fo r a St~~on or Removal Christian Pentury. ~
Dear Mr. Pentury:
This ietter is in r~ponse to the fi ling of Fonn I-246, Applica~ion for a Stay of D~pNtati:J~ ::;r Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcen1ent (ICE} on October 29,201 5.
Pl"c•seoutoria.l discretion ls the authority of nn agency charged with enforcing a law to decide t,) wnst degree to enforce the h~w against a particular individual. ICE, like any other Jaw c:nftm~nn'tlm l;'lg~:n~y, has prosecutot"ial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enf.-m:«m~;Ht Th~se discretionary decisions take on differont fom1s and include stays cf depot'tadon vt' ~\:m~,-_·;,il, Sl.!cll decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totalitY of the circumst~&~es, both positive and negative, and must confbnn with ICE's enforcement prioritles, nam~ly ttUtict1al security, public safety, and border security.
Af·l~i' csreful consideration of all the factol's addressed in your t-equest for a Stay of D~por.ta·hm <,i'r R~moval, it has been determined that th~. granting of such discretionary relief is watrMt~rlln ~his ca:,(;, Therefore, your Application for e. Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby apprcwd tmtil Nqiie)rib~:i-~~4";~'Q.Jq~r At the end of that period, the status of your cnse ~;u be reviewed t:>.. a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
~nc~rely,
f~ Fi~ld Office DfrectoL'

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 99 of 153
Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Depurtmcnt of Homeland Security
I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Christian Pentury C/o William A Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
A_ _ . Re: Application for a Sta~on or Removal Christian Pentury,

February 8, 2017

Dear Mr. Pentury:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S . Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 3, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enfo rcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE' s enforcement priorities, namely national sec11rity, public safet-y, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discJetionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

L .

laJ pft~V ~ 7 r .

71~/

i

t.

C.M. Cronen

Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 100 of 153
Exhibit RR

05/ 21/ 2010 11:21 6036922777
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37B-E3THEFLilCeHdUR1C0H/0-3/N1H7

Page 101 of 15P3AGE

01/04

I
t

U.S.. D~parbne)).t ofHomela:o.d Security ll::oUligration and Customs Enforcement

Naro.e:}1~1l\!l\ El1AAJ

on tl~~ /01 <DTecict'FJ

.you were ordered:

I n
I
l
I '

[ )
l{>Q

Excluded Rtmoved

or deported pU(suant to proceedings commenced prior to April pursuantto procetdio.gs commenced 0)). or after Aprill, 1997.

I,

1997.

Because Immigration and CUstoms Enforcement (ICE)has not effected your depoJtatiori or removal during ordered that you be.placed under supervision a.nd pe:o:nitted tobe at large under the following conditions:

the

pe)."iod

prescribed

by

law,

it

is

I\1

Thllt you ap~ in person deportation or removal.

at

the

time

and

place

specified,

U(JOn

each

and every ·

requ~t

of1CE,

for

identification

and

for

(tJ Ibat upon request oilCE, you appear for roed(cal o.r psychiatric examination at the expense ofthe United States Government.

l r.IQ

That you provide mfonnation under oath about information as ICE ¢onsider-s appropriate.

your nationality,
J J.. t::"

circumstances, ~

habits,

associations,

and

activitiesand such.

other

·

(/)
-t,:_

lhat

you

do

oot

travel

QUtside

~ ( '-'ft'VV ---~~ ~ A
($peoi.fy g«>grJ~>llic limits, it 3l\Y)

.,
for more th;m. 48 hou.rs without fo-st

havi,og poti.fi.ecl tl}isJC.E office ofthe dates and places of such proposed travel.

.Jt\.'That you furnish written notice to tbisiC. offi of a.ny change ofresidence or employment within 48 blouiJ.ofsurh C~¥Jge.

k
8J (~ i(] T1 hat yo3 urepo0 rti.o.3 peJSo,nUoJnlletshseyo axe,

.

. ~t JO:cJO to thisiCE office at: ~'-'g~i4:.l~i\@.na-~ un~etirk,

ted wntte.u penn1Ss1on to report on another date.

~ assi!~ ~-~~-~i,ci.ng ( Thatyou

feE

any necessary travel. documents,

.~

.·

[ ] Oilier.__~--------~--------------------------------------------------------

m Xhereby acknowledge tb.at I have (read) (had
this order, a copy ofwhieb. bas 'been given to fme, detention, or prosecution. ,.- ,.·

interpreted and explained to me me. 1understand that failure to

the comply_with

the

tenns

of

this

language) the contents of ordcmay subject me to a

....

' ..

of INS offici>! wviC>S O<dtl)

05/21/2010 C1a1s:e211:17-6c0v3-619128247727-PBS Document 3B7E-T3HELFiCleHdUR1a-0t/0- 3N/1H7 Page 102 of 1P5A3GE 02/04

u.s.J>cp.utlneut ofiJ.omela.nd s~urity
and Customs Eruorcement

for Form: I-220B
~ l"dUf 10

's A..dd:ress

(picture)

Alien's Telephone Number (ifany)
' .
PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

Title Deportation Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Docum\ ent 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 103 of 153
Jepartment of Homeland Security Enforcement and Removal Office
l 0 New England Executive Park Dr. Burlington, M.<\.01805

U.S. Immigration .and Customs Enf o rc em e n t

Hesti Rimper (AC/O William A. Halm, Esq. 101 Tremo11t St. Suite #1106 Boston, J'lt4 02108

Dear Ms. Rimper,
This is in response to the Application for Stay ofDeportation or Removal which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Cus toms Enforcement (ICE).
I have reviewed your case and I-246 and I have determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of yom request.
Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period until November 09, 2013. The granting of this request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.

CC: William Hah11, ESQ

···-··· __,_. ......- -- -

· - - ---·--- .... ____, ____________ ... _____..___ ··- ------ ---·--·- -- - - -- -

X

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 104 of 153

I

iforcemenl and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Secur ity

10 New England Executive Park

Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

February 17, 2014

Hesti RIMPER C/0 William A. Hahn ESQ. 101 Tremont St. Ste. 1106 Boston, MA 02108
RE: ~~ of Deportation or Removal

Dear Mr. RJMPER:
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was :filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 26, 2013.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been detem1ined that the granting of such discretionary relief is waJ.Tanted in this case. Ther9f9!:e, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved until February I ~R]OI5 . At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,
Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 105 of 153
£njrJrccmentand Removal Operations Boston Field Oj}ice
li.S. Dep~timcnt of Homeland Secur ity 10 New England Executive Park Burlington. MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Hesti Rimper C/0 William A. Hanb, Esq. 101 Tremont St, Suite I 106 Boston, MA. 02108
RE: Application for Hesti Rimper;

February 12, 2015

Dear Ms. Rimper, This is in response to your I-246, Application tor Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and CLtstoms Enforcement (ICE) on January 26,2015.
ApRcreaeefvsrtmeiieeo.rowdcvTeaoahdrlfe,eof.rfioeuntfrlehoacayroseden,ebasyertie,eodrunuemnrrdatiainetlpitaoeFptmnileoib1conarifnuotaieaofldrlnwyfthahf1ocea1rttt,ohta2rhes0Sre1attgah6drye.daronrAeetfsmitrsD1teoghedvepoaiofelnrnsotyduaroctdoiuhoefrrndtrwhioesaqrictlurlRpeebeetseimrtoiefonooxdavrer,aycatluhrSiteesetlasdhiyteeaafrotteuirstbshDywoaetaafpptryiropmoarrnutoeatr.vetciedoadnisnfeootwrfhaiisll be

SincereLy,

allagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03·/·1-·7J{orcPemaengrean1d 0Re6moovfal1O5pe3rations
.)S/on Field Office
U.S. Dcpa&tment of Homeland Security 10 New England Execntive Park Burlington, MA OJ 803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Hesti Rimper C/0 William A. Hanh, Esq. 101 Tremont St, Suite 1106 Boston, MA. 02108
RE: Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal
Hesti Rimper; A - -

February 6, 2015

Dear Ms. Rimper,
This is in response to your 1-246, Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 26,2015.
After careful consideration of all factors addressed in your request for a Stay or Deportation of Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary reliefis warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of oneyear, until February 5, 2016. At the end ofthat period, the status of your case will be
reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 107 of 153
Enfovcement a11d Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Sceurity IQOO District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforce1nent

Hesti Rimper C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for Hesti Rimper,

or Removal

May 2, 2016

Dear Ms. Rimper:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April22, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after consideting the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until May I , 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

W\'IW. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 108 of 153
Exhibit SS

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 109 of 153

U •· ~artment of Homeland Securit} Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Order of Supervision

NAME: ROMBOT, Terry

on

06/291200&

(Date of fillill order)

, you were ordered:

FILE:
DATE: 12/26/2013

Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April 1, 1997. Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after Apri11, 1997.

Because the Service has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervjsion and pennitted to be at large under tbe following conditions:

[ x] That you appear in person at the tin1e and place specified, upon each and every request of the Service, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[ x} That upon request ofthe Service, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense ofthe United States Government. ( x] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other
infonnation as the Service consjders appropriate.

[ x) That you do not travel outside New England for more than 48 hours without frrst having notified this Service office of the dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.

( xj That you furnish written notice to this Service office of any change of residence or employment within 48 hours of such change.

I

(X] That you rep01t in person on January 7, 2014 to this Service office at:

\

275 Chestnut St. Room 210. Manchester, NH 03101 Phone: 603-629-2800 unless you are granted written pennission to report on another

~

:late.

!

:x ] That you assist Jnunigration and Customs Enforcement in obtaining

:x] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Co»ti.ouc o

II!

Timothy Stevens SDDO
(Print name and tille ofiNS offici•l)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

: hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the (;('I Hl.< }i

language) the contents of

his order, a copy ofwhich has been given to me. I understand that fuilure to comply with the terms of this order may subject me to a

'ine, detention, or prosecutio .

. J. Ar!Oli
~portati<•n Officer

(Sigoaturo of alien)

O.te

Form 1-2201l{Rev. 4/I/97}N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 110 of 153

;partmeot of Homeland Security ~ration & Customs Enforcement
:sName ROMBOT, Terry

Continuation Page for Form:
FilcNnmber

Date
12126/2013

I-220B

Alien 's Sig11ature

RIGHT INDEX PRJNT

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

ture

Title

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 111 of 153
A-number . As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the following conditions must be met by your next report in day. Th ere will be no exceptions:
1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS OFFICE)
2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)
3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30
DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) lJNTIL YOUR STAY
REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.
Next report in Date~.0-_ _

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 112 of 153

I

t I
I
t

I

\

U.S. Department ofHomeland Security

l

Enforcement and Removal Office l 0 New England Executive Park Drive Burlington, MA 01805

I
!
l

Terry ROMBOT ( C/0 William A. Halm, Esq. 101 Tremont St. Suite #1106

I

Boswn, frlA 02108

I

J

Dear Mr. Rombot,

i

This is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal fl.Ied by you dated November 9, 2010.

You are a native and citizen of INDONESIA who entered the United States on February 20, 2001. In 2003, you were issued a Notice to Appear charging you with being removable from the United States pursuant to Section 237 (a)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (ACT). On October 23,2006 the Immigration 1udge (JJ) in Boston, MA granted you Voluntary Departure (VD), a decision which you appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On April 29, 2008, the BIA dismissed your appeal and affirmed the IJ's order of removal extending your V D departure date for an additiona1 60 days You are now requesting ICE to exercise favorable discretionary relief from remova l based on participation in Operation Indonesian Surrender; a joint effort between the Boston Field Office ofiCEERO, community leaders within the Indonesian community, Strafford County Sheriffs Office and ICE Headquarters. · In weighing the factors in your case, I have concluded that the favorable exercise of discretion is not merited. Cun·ently, there is no administrative relief available to you and this office will not consider any claimed eligibility for future relief from removal that must be addressed by the EOIRIBIA. In addition, your application fails to present any new facts or substantial equities that have not already been considered in your case that would warrant the granting of your application. Lastly, I am satisfied that you have been accorded due process oflaw and afforded every opportunity to apply for relieffrom removal throughout the proceeding. Therefore, after careful consideration, your request for a stay of deportation or removal is hereby denied as a matter of discretion. Due to your voh.mtary participation with Operation Indonesian Surrender, ICE will grant you a period of 90 days from the date ofthis order in which to settle your affairs and complete your departure from the United States.

ib que Acting Fiel ffice Director ICE-ERO I Boston, MA Field Office
CC: William Halm,.ESQ

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 113 of 153
nforcemeni and RemQval Operations 8Qstoll Field Office U.S. Depnrtrnent of Homeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803
May 28, 2015
Teny Rombot C/o William A Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, MA 021 08 Re: Application for a Stay ofDepo11ation or Removal
Terry H. Rombot, • • • • • Dear Mr. Rombot, This letter is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 08,2015. Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a pru.1icular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security. After careful review of your file and the factors addressed in the stay request, it has been detennined that the granting ofsuch discretionary is warranted. Your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved until May 27,2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a detetmination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time. Sincerely,
Sean Hagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 114 of 153

Terry Rombot C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield Street Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for ~Lion or Removal Terry Rombot, . . . . . _

Eufarcemcut and Removal Opuation.f Bosum Field Office
U.S. Dcpurtn1cnt or Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington. MA 01803
U.S. ImmigTation and Customs Enforcement
August 1, 2016

Dear Mr.Rombot:

This letter is in response.to the fi ling of Form I-24.6, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on June 17,201 6.

Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercjse it in the ordinary course of

,
~

enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's

I

enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security. After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of

I

Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Appl ication for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is

r

hereby approved for a period of one year, until July 18, 2017. At the end of that period, the

i

status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order wiH be

executed at that time.

Sincerely,
R~se?~/t'~
Acting Field Office Director

www.icc .gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 115 of 153
Exhibit TT

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 116 of 153

U.S. Department of Homeland Securit;

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Order of Supervision

Date: 07/2/10

File No: AJI. Name: Setiawan, Agus

on 12/15/09 , you were ordered:
(Date of final order)

[] Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April 1, 1997. [X] Removed pursuant to procee~lings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

Because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by Jaw, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under he following conditions:

[X] Thatyou appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of the Immigration and Customs Enforcemen,t Office of Detention and Removal for identification and for deportation or removal.

[X] That upon request ofthe Immigration and Customs Enforcemen~ Office of Detention and Removalyou appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

[X) 'Ibatyou provide information under oatl1 about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other information as tb.e Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal considers appropriate.

[X] That yo~ do not travel outside Massachusetts

for more than 48 hours v.ithout first having notified the Immigration

(Specify geographic limits. ifany)

and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Remo'ltll office ofthe dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.

[X] That you furnish mitten notice to Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal of any change ofresidence or · emp.loymellt within 4 8 hours of such change.

....

0

[X] Thnt you report-in-peroon-en the 10/1/2010@ 9:00. to this.Serviee-offi.ee-at. ICE/Detention & Removal Office, 10 New England

Executive Park. Burlington, MA 01803; (781) 359-7500 unless you are granted written pennission to report on another date.

[X] That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal in obtaining any necessary travel documents.

[X ] Other: Call into the telephonic reoorting system monthly as required.

[X ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Con.linueoo sep:ll1116sheer ifrequire;!)

/' ---~ ~ ~~ ·

. •. ....---

(Si(lllaiUto of ICE Official)

(Prinl namo and tiOe of INS official)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order ofSupervision

I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had ilterpreted and explained to me in the _ English

language) the contents of

this order, a copy of which has been given to me. I understand that failUJe to comply with the tenus of this order may subject me to a

t11te, detention., or prosecution.

X·------~~(~Si~~=e=of~=i~=) ~---------- 712/10 D~le

Form 1·220B(Rev. 4/1197)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 117 of 153

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Im.m

and Customs Enforcement

Name: Setiawan, Agus

Date: 7/2/1 0

[X] That you do not associate with lmown gang members, criminal associates, ot· be associated with any such activity.

[ ] That you register in a substance abuse program within 14 days and provide the ICE with \Yritten proof of such within 30 days. The proof must include the name, address, duration, and objectives ofthe program as well as the name of a program counselor.
I ] Th1tt you register in a sexual deviancy counseling program within 14 days and provide the ICE with written
proof of such within 30 days. You must provide the ICE with the name of the program, the address of the program, duration and objectives of the program as well as the name of a cou~selor.

[ ] Thl'lt you register as ·a sex offender, if applicable, within 7 days of being released, with the appropriate
agency(s) and provide the ICE with written p1·oof of such within 10 days.

[X] That you do not .commit any crimes while on this Order of Supervision. ·

[X) Tbat you report to any parole or probation officer, if applicable, within 5 business days and provide the ICE
.. with :writte11 verification of the officers name, address, tele(\ho.n_e number, and reporting requirements. ···- - -
[X) That you continue to follow any prescribed doctors orders whether medical or psychological including tal<ing prescribed medications.

[X] That you provide the ICE with written copies of requests to Embassies or Consulates requesting the issuance of a travel document.

[X] That you provide the ICE with written responses from the Embassy or Consulate regarding your request.
[X] Any violation of the above conditions will/ may result in revocation of your employment authorization document.

[X] Any violation ofthese conditions may result in you being taken into ICE custody and you being criminally prosecuted.

[X] Appear at any future court bearings.

X.____@=......-..=---J- - -- - - - -1i2110

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 118 of 153
Office ofDetention anti Removal Operations Boston Field C?ffice
U.S. ))ep:l.ltment of Hornclmul Security 10 New England Excculive Park Burlington, MA 01&03

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

February 8, 2012
Agus SETIAWAN
C/0 William A. Hahn 10 1 Tremont Street, Suite 1106 Boston, MA. 02108 RE: Stay request, A
Dear Mr. Setiawan This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with this office on February 8, 2012. I have reviewed your case and find that your particular circumstances merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Therefore, I hereby grant you a Stay of Removal until Febnta11' 8, 2013
Sincerely,
. ·.~
Dorothy Herrer Niles Field Office Director Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 119 of 153
Exhibit UU

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 120 of 153

U.S. Dep1lrtment of Homeland Securi~

hnmigration & Customs Enforcement

a

'

'

" ~ ,. " I " • ' .~

------ •'~-• "<

Order of Supervision

NAME: Linaria SINAGA on ----=JUL~7Y:-=3....,2'="0~1"'-3_ __ ,, you were ordered:
{Date offinal or<kc)

FILE: DATE:
NOV 0 6 2013

Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to April I, 1997. X Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April I, 1997.

Because the Service has not effected yow- deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and pennitted to be at large under the following conditions:

[x) That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of the Service, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[ x] That upon request ofthe Service, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

[ x] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other information as the Service considers appropriate.

(u/That you do not travel outside _ _ _ _ ____,_N'""E"-'W.:...:E,_,_N'""G"L"..A,ND=-='-=' -=ST_,_,,A..,T=E:.:.S_ _ _ _ _ _ for more than 48 how-s without first
(Specify geographic limits, if. any)
having notified this Service office of the dates and places ofsuch proposed travel.

[ x] l11at you furnish written notice to this Service office ofany change of residence or employment within 48 hours ofsuch change.
[X] That you report in person on the---~--=:·._......:_:.::_:_._.______,""~'L'-'Y.~'J-''L------ to this Service office at: unless you are granted written permission to report on another date.

(x] That you assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in obtaining any necessary travel docwnents.

[x] Other: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 16, 2013 YOU ARE REQUIRED TO

PROVIDE IMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT UCE) VALID TICKETS SHOWJNG INTENDED

DEPARTURE FROM THE UNITED STATES. YOUR TRAVEL MUST COMMENCE VIA BOSTON's LOGAN

INTRNATIONAL AIRPORT, AND MUST TAKE PLACE ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 6th, 2013. F~URE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN YOUR DETENTION AND REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED ST~TES BY THIS AGENCY.

septu:~t~heet [x ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Continue on

ifrequicedL . >

Timothy Stevens I SDDO I MAN
{Print oamo and title C)f ICE official)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order ofSupervision

I hereby acknowledge t at I have (read} (had interpreted and explained to me in the ENGLISH language) the contents of

xrov this order, a copy o · ~been given.to me. I understand that failure to~ ly wm ith the terms of this order may subject me to a

-fm-e-,-d-et-e~ ntio~n, ~ 0 ~r ~~io- l).~· ~~~·J~~ .r_·~~~~o~:ht_~O~!fi~c~cr~------

J .K_

Q 6 'HH3

ll

~Ul' .

cia! serving order)

(Sign3ruce of alien)

Date

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 121 of 153

.J.f'. Department of Homeland Security
Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Order of Supervision-Addendum

Name : Linaria SINAGA

INQV0620l:l
Date:

tt-.l a~sociate ~itTyh.at you do not

with known gang members, criminal associates, or be associated with any such

l [ ] That you register in a substance abuse program within 14 days and provide the INS with written proof of
such within 30 days. The proof must indude the name, address, duration, and objectives of the program as well l.l as the name of a program counselor.

[ ] That you register in a sexual deviancy counseling program within 14 days and provide the INS with written I

proof of such within 30 days. You must provide the INS with the name of the program, the address of the program, duration and objectives of the program as well as the name of a counselor,

I

[ 1That you register as a sex offender, if applicable, within 7 days of being released, with the appropriate
agency(s) and provide the INS with written proof of such within 10 days.

I

~That you do not commit any crimes while on this Order of Supervision.

I
i

l ] That you report to any parole or probation officer as required within 5 business days and provide the INS
with written verification of the officers name, address, telephone number, and reporting requirements.

I
I
!

l ] That you continue to follow any prescribed doctors orders whether medical or psychological including

I
I,

taking prescribed medications.

!

~~tTrhaavtelyoduopcuromveidnet. the INS with written copies of requests to Embassies or Consulates requesting the issuance
.) !That you provide the INS with written responses from the Embassy or Consulate regarding your request.

I
I
I

, ,Any violation ~ument.

ofthe

above

conditions

will

may

result

in

revocation

of

your

employment

authorization

I
I

~~iAnnalylvyioplraotsioencuotfedth.ese conditions may result in you being taken into Service custody and you being

"
I

I

){.other: ~(. ~NI!\,T'"t~\oN.f

I

~~.j_

I

I

I

I'

"

'.
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 122 of 153

O'.S. Department of Homeland Security Imrnigration & Customs Enforcement
AJien's Name
Linaria SINAGA

I-2208
Date
NOV 0 6 2013

Alien's Signature Alien's Address

(picture) RIGHT INDEX PRINT

PERSONAL REPORT RECORD

Title

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 :PO:eamegntean1d2R3emoovfal1O5pt!3rations
.··n Firld Q(fi,·e
t:.s. Department of Homeland Sl!{'urity
]()New England Executi\·e Park Burlington. M.<\ 01803

U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

February 7, 2014

Linaria Sinaga c/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Hahn & Matkov 101 Tremont Street, #1106
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Re : Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

tinaria SW.AiJ?.t,

1 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Ms. Sinaga:
This is in response to your I-246, Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed
with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Nove~ber 12,2013.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decid~::: to what degree to enforce the law against a pru1icular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the orctinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priolities, namely national secru'ity, public safety, and border security.
In your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, you address a number of factors in supp011 of this application, mrunly you have cited that you have two children born in the United States and the hardship depo1tation would cause to your children.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been detennined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your stay is hereby approved for one year, until February 6, 2015 . At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,
A~~
~[v"Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 124 of 153

En.fo"Y!IItent and Removal Opemtions
Boston Field 0./Jicr:

U.S. Dcrartmcn I0 New Engi~nd

t ofUomelnud Stcurity Exccl,lliv~ Park

13urliugl<m, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement

Linaria $1naga C/0 William A. Hanh, Esq. 101 Tremont St, Suite 1106
Boston, MA. 02108
RE: AppJicatlon for
Liniaria Sinaga;

February 12, 2015

Dear Ms. Sinaga,

This is in :response to your withU.S. Immigration and

IC-2u4s6to, mAsppElnicfaotriocet1mfeonrtS(tIaCyEo)foDnepJaonl'utaatriytm23o,r2R0e1m5.oval,

which

was

filed

ARcpreaeefvsrtmeieioer.odwcvTaoeahrldf;eeoffriouetnflrheocaayroseden,baesyertie,eodrnuuemnrrdatiaientliptaoepFtnrilemoiobcniarfnutoaieaolfdrlnwyfthahf1ocae1rttto,hat2rhesS0era1ttgadh6ryde.aronreAetfsimtsDnetgohedvepoiaonfelrnstoyuadrotcdlio.ho.elfrnrdtrhiweosaqcritlurRlepebteesiemtroifneoooxadvrre,ayactlhuSrieetstealshdiyteeaafroteitursbtshDywoaeaatfpprlyoripmoarrntuoeatrv.eticedoadnisnfeootwfrhiaisll be

Sincerely,

Se· . hllagher
Field Office Director

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 125 of 153
Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Depar'tmcnt of Homeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Linaria Sinaga C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Linaria Sinaga, ~

March 18,2016

Dear Ms. Sinaga:
This Jetter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16,2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law
enforcement agency, has prosecutmial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of dep01tation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the
totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE' s enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is
wananted in tbis case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is
hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 17,2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be
executed at that time.

Sincerely,

r
Fteld Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 126 of 153
J;;nforcemenr and Removal Operations

I

Boston Field Office

I

U.S. Depnrc rueut of H omeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. In1migration

I

and Customs

I

Enforcement

I

i

February 10,2017

I

Linaria Sinaga C/o William A. Hahn, Esquire 36 Bromfield St. Suite 500
A- Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a ~rtation or Removal
Linaria Sinaga,

Dear Mrs. Sinaga:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 3, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative> and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file> as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincer e ly,

ft;!iP /-v ,

~~ UUO . v .

C.M. Cronen Field Office Director

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 127 of 153
Exhibit VV

Case 1:17-cv-1184•2.I' -PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 128 of 153

,i,
I ;

r,

i!

I:I'

A-number

!i
I!

!I

i

l

~

As agreed upon as patt of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the

i

following conditions must.be met by your next report in day.

I
i!

li

There wil1 be no exceptions:

i

I

I) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FE.ES (BURLINGTON, MASS OFFICE)

2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)

3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

6-'{" ..'

( / / let / ,..·--·-·---···--··· .,l.... .

S1. gn

. ··-.

---

---· .

/

/
L

l .~

t

'

./_""\

Next report in Date~.,k_:.._tJ __

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 129 of 153

U.S. Depar tment of Homeland Security

' •.

ilm.m.iiy• a•ti•o.n .~•dmC•u•s•to•~. .E•n•fu•rc•e•m•~•t............................................o..rd . ~

D.O.B.

FileNo:-

7 - Date:

Z, -; " _

\
\

l

C.O.B Indonesia

[ [

] :.: ]

Excluded Removed

or deported pursuant to

pursuant to proceedings commenced proceedings commenced on or after

prior to Apr i l l ,

April 1997.

1,

1997.

. I

(pBXeerc]ioaOudTfsfhpeiacrtetehsyeocorfIuimDbaemepdtpeibgenyartairoltaiinnownap,naeidtnrsidRos neComruadstoettvorheameld,sttifhEmoarnetfiydaonoercnduetpimbfleiaeccnpaelttaiOsocpnefedfaiccnuiefdnieodfdofe,rrDusdepuetopepnenort1evitoaiasnctihiooannanndaodnRrdereevpmmeeronoyvvnaraieltlqt.heuadesstnotoobtfeehfaefteIlcamtregmdeiyguornaudtrieodrnethpaeonrdftoaCltliouoswntoionmrgresmcEoonnvfdoalltricdoeuomrs:ienngt the

[X]

That upon request examination at the

eoxfpthenesIemomf itghreatUionniteadndStCatuesstoGmosvEernnfmorecnemt ent Office

ofDetention

and

Removal,

you

appear for medical

fl

psychiatric

~~,,~;};~ [XJ TinhfaotrmyoautiopnroavsidtheeinImfomrmigartaiotinmunandedrCouasthtoambsouEtnfyoorucer mnaetniot nOaflfiityce, coirfcDumetesntatniocnesa,nhdaRbietsm, oavssaolccioatnisoindse,rsanadpparcotipvriitaitees. and sn.:;h other

[X]

That you do not travel outside and Customs Enforcement Office

o

(Specify gcogrnphic limils, ifany)
f Detention and Removal

office

for more than 48 hours of the dates and places o

without first having no fsuch proposed travel.

tified

the

Immigration

(X) 'eJbmaptlyooyumfeunrtnwisihthwinri4tt8enhonuortsicoeftsouIcmhmchigarnagteio. nand Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal of any ch~nge ofresidence or

(X] That you report in Hampshire, unless you

paerersgornanotnedWweridttneenspdearymiNssoiovnemtobreerpo3rt"o' ·n

at 9:00 am another date.

to this Service office at: 811 Canal Street, !Yianches1er New

[X] Other: JJrfng an i11terp1'eter in your native language [ ]

lp.,.. Ft~-4

..f

1). (J.

(Print name n.rfd lid.: ofINS official)

Fonn l-2208 (Rev. 8/1 41ll7)N

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 130 of 153
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs Enforcement

Alie11's Sig11ature

(picture) RIGHT INDEX PRINT

DATE

PERSONA L REPORT RECORD

OFFICER

COI\Ill\-IENT/CHANGES

Signatwe

Title
Deportatiou Officer

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 131 of 153
UElB0.nSufN.rolDierncewgepmtaEornntemng, tMleananAntdod0fERH1xe8oem0mc5uoeltvaiavnledOPSefafcriukcreiDtyrive

I
I
f
t

UaEnn.Sdf.oICr1cnuemsmtoigemnrasttion

I
I
~
I

~--··'••t

I

F1C01/·O1edTWdryieSlmlOiaoMmntBHSAtarhHenet,(EAs-q. Suite 1106 Boston, MA 02108

I
I

f

Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal
DTfCIeiAgbgelxuherairctssaadarrctnvanooiMwteostmreirdirrindtdn.seihgnifvSErnogotieoahnerlsfmryefwpatyo,hbEoetracieandcnssihmesrfyscme,aoptouramteoucmoynreraasytrmtcterto(aayeqeIunsCrnuprecoteEeeAasafr)sntni.pdowdddpidsohlIRcie-oicr2cseeafh4mtntti6wiowoootanenvapclarfyvoprlooealnrOinuf(cStpre1atreaA2tairp)aoypapnmntporiyoloaofiinvcnnmDsaadthelmtDidpsooieiofgnfvtrryreioftasraoomitmtruoiioorinStnnhnrtoeeeasodqfytdraIutamotRheutfsaeemstRtm.ooiteghorfmretvbahroaeetilvins,oaaelwnrlefeitiahttsneitcohrdh.eyrwToeubha.sye

I
I
,I
~
t

' '

i
I f
I
ri
I
I
tt
~

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17)epParalmgeenl o1f3H2omoelfau1d5Sc3curit.
Enrorcement and Removal Office I0 New England Executive Park Dr.
Burlington, MA 01805
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

FCr/e0dWdyiSllOiaMmHBAalHm,(-~
1011'remollt St. Suite #1106 Boston, MA 02108
Re: I-246 Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal

DEC 2 1 2013

Dear Mr. SOMBAH,

This is in response to your Enforcement and Removal

Application for Stay Operations Division

ofDeportation or Removal, which was filed with of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

the

I have reviewed your case and I those an alien ordered removed

-246 application and would normally face

detennined that circumstances exist that are which warrant tbe granting of your request.

beyond

Argercqacnuoteersddtidnfogorleysa,ntaeosmtacpomonraaftertyer rapnoeyfridoimidscmorfeigt1iroaynteioaynroausntradmtuwossioltlrreebncedennoetnfAitNptoopvlyieocmaut.bioenr

for Stay of Removal is hereby 17,2013. The granting of this

stay

Doroth{~~· Sincerely,

?ff~

Field~~~Director

Boston Field Office I ICB-ERO

CC: William Hahn, ESQ

X

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03J/'J1nof7sotorcneFmPieeanldlgaOnefdfic1Ree3m3ovaolfOp1er5e~3/ions
U.S. Department ofllomeland Security

j

10 New England Executive Park

Burlington, Il-iA 01803

f

f

U.S. Immigration and Customs

I

Enforcement

f
I

I

February 17,2014

f
f

i

I
Freddy SOMBAH

C/0 William A. Hahn ESQ.

J

101 Tremont St. Ste. 1106 Boston, MA 02108

l

RE: 1~ a Stay of Deportation or Removal

Dear Mr. SOMBAH:

This U.S.

iIsmimn rigesraptoionnseantodyCouusrtoAmpsplEicnaftoiorcnefmorenatS(tIaCyEo)foDneNp0o1vieamtiobnero2r6R,e2m01o3v.al,

which

was

flied

with

ARcFdaeeefsttbmeeer1.roumvacTaraiynhrle,aefti1ruiteo9lhn~~ca2o1os'nf5bswiy.edheoeenurtrahAdteaeitroptentpth1hlmoeiecfraineeatienmlolddontthvohfeaoaflrtfotahtacrhadteotSerrtgpsawreyaariindlooltddifbrn,eDegsteeshoxpeefdeocsrsituuntaatctetihyuodosndauitorsotcfrrhreaeRyqttoueitoueimmnrsotaecvrf.ayoaslrereiaslwiSehitflealriysebboewyfarDaerprveapipenrowtoervetdaedtdiinofunotnrhotiisarl

Sincerely, Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 134 of 153
E•iforcemem and Removal Oparations Boslon Fi~ld Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
February 23, 2015
Freddy Sombah C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 10 l Tremont Street Suite 1106 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: ~ililiiiiltay of Deportation or Removal
·'
Dear Mr. Sombah:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fom1 I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Inunigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on January 26,2015.
Prosecutotial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other Jaw enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with lCE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is wammted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until February 22, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely,

\v ean Gallagher
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 135 of 153
Enforcement and Rl!moval Opi!rCIIions Bosiou Field Office
U.S. Dep:utment of Homeland s~~urity 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01 &03
U.S. In1n1.igration and Custom.s Enforcement

Freddy Sombah C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a St~1tation or Removal Freddy Sombah, A. . . .

Febmary 18, 2016

Dear Mr. Sombah:
This letter is in response to the fi ling of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), on February 16, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforc.ement. These discretionary decisions take on different fonns and include stays of
deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, pllblic safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of aU the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of
Deportation or Removal, it has been determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is
warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved tm tiJ February 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will
be reviewed for a determination of whether t he removal order wiUbe executed at that time.

Sincerely,

Sean Gallagher Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 136 of 153
E:,vv• ·11 and Removal Operations "', .'ft&l Office
· , i~IClll of Homeland Security
;..U:t Avenue Burling•• h. MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Freddy Sombah C/o William A. Hahn, Esquire 36 Bromfield Street
Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Freddy Sombah, ~

Febmary 10, 2017

Dear Mr. Sombah:
This letter is in response to the filing of Fom1 I-246, Applicat ion for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U .S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 17, 2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law
enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of
deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's
enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed i.n the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of $Uch discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Depottation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

2 '4v Sincerely,

.

.fi'/;

w ofi/J

C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

www. ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 137 of 153
Eru ..<Cement and RrmtJ\'al Opotaliom· Bosrotl Fidd Qlfice
U.S. Department of Bomcbnd Scc ur·ity i 000. Dis(rict Avenue B.urlington, Ml\ 01803
U.S. Immigra.tiori and Customs Enforcement

Ms. Freddy Sombah

Clo Ca~ldie Nath, Esq.

Jovce & Associates

205 Portland Street, 3'd Floor

Boston, MA 02114

I. R~·: Application for aS . • I

tion. or Removal

Freddy Sombah, AI

September 18,2017

Dear Mt'. ·satnbah:

This letter js in re.sponse to the tiling of Fonn 1-246, Applicatiori for a Stay of Deportation or Re!moval, with U.S. Inmr~gration <md Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September l , 2017.

Prosecutoriai discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what

degree to enforce the law against a agem~y) has prosecutorial discretion

particular individual. and may exercise it

ICE, in the

like any ordinary

other course

law enforcement of enforcement.

These discr~?tiona·ry decisions take on different forms and i.ncJude stays of deportation or removal.

Such dr;cisions ate made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances,

both positive and negati~e, anq must c·onfo.rm with ICE's enforcement pt;ioritie~, na.Qlety national

secnriry, public safety, and border security.

1 have carefuily reviewed your file,.as we)l as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or·Removal, and I have determined _that the granting pf such discretionary relief is. not suffi.ciently wananted. The Application for a Stay of Depof\:'\tion .or Rem6va~ i& hereby denied. There 1s n.o appeal from this. decision.

Sincerely,

~C. NI. ~ronen
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 138 of 153
Exhibit WW

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 139 of 153

A-number

As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the fo llowing conditions must be inet by your next report in day.
There will be no exceptions:

1) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS

I

OFFICE)

2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)

3) YOU ARE ·REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

Next rep01i in Date_ r_v;.._/_8-J.j_;o_ _

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 140 of 153
EnjoJ·ceme/11 and Removal Operations Boston Field Ojjke
U.S. Depat1ment ofHomeland Security I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

Ms. Poppy SOMBAH C/o Caddie Nath, Esq. Joyce & Associates 205 Portland St, 3rd floor Boston, MA 02114
Re: Application for a Sta~1 or Removal Poppy SOMBAH I~

September 14,2017

Dear Ms. Sombah:

' ,..

This letter is in response to the filing of F01m I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September 1, 2017.

Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individuaL ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.

I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

C. M. Cronen Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Docum\ ent 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 141 of 153
Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security I 000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 0 1803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Poppy Sombah C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 021 08
Re: Application for a S~tion or Removal Poppy Sombah, A~

March 18,2016

Dear Ms. Sombah:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Depot1ation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16, 2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary comse of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been detemuned that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a detetmination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 142 of 153
Er!)·_,rcement and Removal Opera/ions Basion Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Se~urity 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Poppy Sombah C/o William A. Hahn, Esquire 36 Bromfield Street Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Poppy Sombah, A

February 10, 2017

Dear Mrs. Sombah:
T his letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I CE) on January 17,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to
what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of
enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of
deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby
denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

- -·--- __ Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 143 of 153

-------...

-- .- ....._.. ,_,..;:;

....

O.Dlce ofEiiforce.ment and Removal Operatio11s.

U.S. Dcpar1meot of Hom~l~nd Security 10 New England Executive Drive Burlington, M~sachusetis 01803

U.S. II.nrnigtation and Customs Enforcement

Poppy Sombah C/o Wi1Jian A. Hahn, Esq. 101 Tremont Street Suite 1106 Boston, MA 02108

February 11, 2015

RE: Application for a Stay of D~portation or Removal
Poppy Sombah~ Ali.i• • •

Dear Mrs. Sombah:

This is in respon~e to your 1~246, Application for a St~y of Deportation or Removal, .which was filed with U.S. Immigration and·Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 26; 2015.

After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or

Removal, it has been deteiTnined that case. Therefore, your application for

the granting of such discretionary a Stay of Deportation or Removal

relief is warranted iti this is hereby appro~ed fo r a

period ofone year, until Febmary 10, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will

be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

lagher
Field ffice Director Boston Field Office

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 144 of 153
Exhibit XX

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 145 of 153

A-number

As agreed upon as part of the Indonesian Surrender Operation, the

[ following conditions must be met by your next report in day.

· - ----~·--~-e-will be no exceptions.

-·-·- -·-····-- ·..··· --·--·-·· --

~~

:~

lj

I) FILE I-246 REQUEST FOR STAY OF DEPORTATION

!

WITH THE REQUIRED FEES (BURLINGTON, MASS

OFFICE)

2) VALID PASSPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO ICE MANCHESTER (IF NOT ALREADY DONE)

3) YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS (BEGINNING TODAY) UNTIL YOUR STAY REQUEST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED.

J(l Next report in Date----./,7r---:L-::f.(:#t-"--- -

~

~ '

--~--------------------~------~------------------------~

.:-: :"::' ·:":·.-,·--· . .-:~ . ~::-.:::.:~:.. :. .-.--... - · ·-. ·- . ·- . . . . .-·- :·: . -. I --~-----· :.:·.:=~:::·:::_· ~ :0...:·::..:.:·.:·:·.::. .

..:.._..c::. -· ·....._ ·--'- ..... ---·--::::.:· · -· ". - .:::.::·::::: :..:...:_.._

_ _:__.._:_____ .. ·:... :::_·::..

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 146 of 153

U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs hn·tnrr.P.rnPJnt

.. .:. . •

File No

Date: 09/03/2010

D.O.B.

C.O.B Indonesia

- - - - - - - - - · -···"·"··--·-·--
[ ] Excluded or deported pursuant to proceedings commenced prior to Aprill, 1997. [ x ] Removed pursuant to proceedings commenced on or after April 1, 1997.

Because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal has not effected your deportation orremoval during the period prescribed by law, it is ordered that you be placed under supervision and permitted to be at large under tl1e following conditions:

[ X] That you appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of he Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal, for identification and for deportation or removal.

[X] That upon request ofthe Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal, you appear for medical opsychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Govenunent.

(X] That you provide information under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other information as the Immigrati>n and Customs Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal considers appropriate.

[X] That you do not travel outside the New England States

for more than 48 hours without fust having notified the Immigration

(Specify geographic limils, if any)

and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal office ofthe dates and places of such proposed travel.

[X] That you furn ish written notice to hnmig.__ra_t_,..~...._~ employment within 48 hours of sue ange.

[X] That you report in person on unless you are granted written permis - n to report on another dat

[X] That you assist the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Detention and Remov

[X] Other: Bring all interpreter in vour native la11guage

[ ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions {Continue on separate sheet ifrequired)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release under an Order of Supervision

I hereby acknowledge that I have (read) (had interpreted and explained to me in the

language) the contents of

r 4 t , this order, a co of which has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of thirorder may subject me to a
fme, deten · , r pro ution.

~ ~\
(Signa!Ure of alien)

09/03/2010
Date

.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 147 of 153

U:S. Department of Homeland Securit.
Inunigration & Customs Enforcement · ·

\
Order of Superv-~sion

. ,-:" . . ~
f :·::

·'i ~t_.-·~.~~~-"~:."·~_:·i_.:.:.•'

;:~;·

NAME: Debby WANLANDOW

._.../~.~:·,:,.,

~~_:._'_{_~;_r -.~.:' .~:Y:;::;..

'''•*:·.'·.··. \ t.

...

f ·.,

.. ,.? :.

'{K~:} .:,1-f.:~ t

._:..•,. /.,: ·
•l •

:.·
.,

*..~·,. •

".r;,.:~~.:;_..~.•··- ..·._ ,• • •

·._.

,:.~.·-

.

FILE:
DATE: 03-08-05

·:. ;•; .. . - -on

·

--..Augus-~3----:;;-You-we:re-ordcred;.
(Date of final order)

-~~-~~-·r1-.• 2.__
., ~-

.......·:"·;.";:,'- ... /-~ ~~-~~;;~ ~;:~.}·~ - :::·. --'{~:-~,t-. --·-"-'l --

f.)~~:·

;·~

X

Excluded Removed

oprurdseupaonrttetodppruorcseueadnitntgospcroomcemedeinncgesdcoonmomc eannceerdAppriroijf::fJ,o'1:A99p7ri:,/ll~,pJ9--·97.

·~.:::·.' .

A:~.:~" ,

Because the Service has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescri~~g.·i;y law, it is ordered that you be placed

under supervision and pennitted to be at large tmder the following conditions:

.:;;·!·

[x] That you appear in person at ·the time and place specified, upon each and evcty request ofthe Service, for identification and for

deportation or removal.

·

[ x] That upon request of the Service, you appear for medical or psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States Government.

[ x] That you provide infonnation under oath about your nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities and such other information as the Se1vice considers appropriate.

[ x] That you do not travel outside _ __ ---=.N,..E.._W.t..!....;E""'N,_,r,G:::L""AND=-"~S~T:..!':A~TE"-=S:.<........_ _ __ _ __ _ _ for more than 48 hours ·without fust
(Specify geogr•pltic linlil$, ifany)
having notified this Service office ofthe dates and places ofsuch proposed travel

[ x] That you furnish written notice to this Service office ofany change of residence or employment within 48 hours ofsuch change.

[X] That you report in person on the ISTTUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH @09:00AM to this Service office at:

803 CANAL ST. MANCHESTl!~R. NH

·

unless you are granted written pennission to report on another date.

[x ] That you assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service in obtaining any necessary travel docmnents.

[X Other: Alien is given 30 days to produce airline tickets for departure, additional 30 davs to depart the United States.

[x ] See attached sheet containing other specified conditions (Coulinne onseparate sheet ift equired)

Alien's Acknowledgment of Conditions of Release er an Order of Supervision

I hereby aclai~wledge that I hav·e (read) (had inteqJreted and explained to me 1n the . language) tlte contents of
this order, a copy of which has been given to me. I understand that failure to comply with the terms ofthis order may subject me to a fme, detention, or os cution.

J. Anoli
Deportation Office-<

rJJAR 0 8 2005

(Siznat.ue ofalien)

Date

.. ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _____ __:__ . . _ _ _ ______ __ __: ___ .. _ _ _ ___ . ._·.:::.:..::.:: ~-: :-.·-- ~::;,:._,

. ::. :::-.:~--· - ·7"- -::.: -:-;_,_ ::.,..:__:..::~.::::7: :._,,, ,;::,

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/1E7nforcPemaengteand1R4l!8moovafl O1p5e3rations
Boston Field OjJu:e
U.S. Dcp•lrtlllrut ofHomeh1nd Secu rity l000 District Avenue Burlington, ii1A 01803
U.S. Irrunigration and Customs Enforcem ent

Debby Walandow
C/o William A. Hahn, Esq.
36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Sta~on or Removal
Debby Walandow, ~

September 18, 2017

Dear Ms. Walandow:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or
Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September 15,2017.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary dedsions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conform with ICE 's enforcement priorities, namely national secmity, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Depmtation or Removal, and I have determined tbat the granting of such discretionary relief is not sufficiently warranted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. There is no appeal from this decision.

Sincerely,

C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/1E7nforPcemaegnet an1d4R9emoovfa1l O5p3emtions
Boston Fiefd Office
U.S. Dep:wtmcnt ofHomclaml Secut·ity I000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Debby Walandow C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. 36 Bromfield St, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal Debby Walandow,

February 8, 2017

Dear Ms. Walandow:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S . Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 17,2017.
Prosecutolial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a patticular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. . These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must conf01m with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
I have carefully reviewed your file, as well as the factors addressed in the Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, and I have determined that the granting of such discretionary relief is not
sufficiently wananted. The Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby denied. T here is no appeal from this decision.

Sine=?Ei// (_g)f)f-rfaJ c[--fY ;
C. M. Cronen
Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 Page 150 of 153
Enjo1;cement and Removal Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Dtpartment ofHomeland Security 1000 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Debby Walandow C/o William A. Hahn, Esq. Law Office of Hahn and Matkov 36 Bromfield Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108
Re: Application for a Stay ofD''""'"·'"'"'""'" or Removal Debby Walandow, A

March 18, 2016

Dear Ms. Walandow:
This letter is in response to the filing of Form I~246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 16,2016.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a patticular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case~by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been detetmined that the granting of such discretionary relief is waiTanted in this case. Therefore, your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a pe1iod of one year, until March 17, 2017. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

fr' ean Gallagher Field Office Director

www.ice.gov

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17JorcPemaegncean1d5R1emoovfal1O5pe3rations
Boston Field Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

March 3, 2015

Debby Walandow C/o William A. Hahn 101 Tremont St, Suite 1106 Boston, MA. 02108
RE: Application for a Sta~ion or Removal Debby Walandow; ~

Dear Ms. Walandow:
This letter is in response to your I-246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was ft.led with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 23,2015 .
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a pmticular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. These discretionary decisions take on different forms and include stays of deportation or removal. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the totality of the circumstances, both positive and negative, and must confonn with ICE's enforcement priorities, namely national security, public safety, and border security.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been detemrined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in this case. Therefore, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved for a period of one year, until March 2, 2016. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.

Sincerely,

·----

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS

Document 37-3

Filed 10/03/17 Page 152 of 153
_.1/orcement and Remo11af Operations Boston Field Office
U.S. Department or Homeland Security
10 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

February 17, 2014

Debby WALANDOW C/0 William A. Hahn ESQ. 101 Tremont St. Ste. 1106
Boston, MA 02 I08
RE: ~-a Stay ofDeportation or Removal

Dear Ms. WALANDOW:
This is in response to your Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, which was filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November26, 2013.
After careful consideration of all the factors addressed in your request for a Stay of Deportation or Removal, it has been deterntined that the granting of such discretionary relief is warranted in lhis case. Ther~e, your application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal is hereby approved until
February 1~015. At the end of that period, the status of your case will be reviewed for a determination of whether the removal order will be executed at that time.
Sincerely, Chris Cronen(A) DFOD

cfh

HAY 28 ?n1r.

------------~--,~----~---------------

. , ~~Depar tment of Homeland Security
Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 37-3 Filed 10/03/17 PEanfgorecem1e5nt3ru1od Rfe1m5ov3al'Office
: 10 New England Executive Park Dr. Burlington, MA 01805
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Debby WALANDOW( A C/O William A. Hail11, Esq. 10I Tremont St. Suite #1106 Boston, .MA 02108
Dear Ms. WALANDOW,
This is in response to the Application for Stay of Deportation or Removal which was filed with the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I have reviewed your ~ase and I-246 application and determined that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant approval of your request. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion your Application for Stay of Removal is hereby granted for a temporary period until November 21, 2013. The granting ofthis request does not confer any immigration status or benefit to you.
CC: William Hahn, ESQ

 
 ?~

c!
·~i

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 42 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 40 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

~~ lt~L_I_A_D_E_V_IT_ru_,_e_t-al-.,------------------~

~~~i-L'.-~~r\)­V.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

tr t!iCHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,

Civil Action No.l7-cv-11842-PBS

~ ~ ~~

Respondents/Defendants.

~~ i0~~~ ~EMERGENCY ::; \) ~ '\1
r C' } ~

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT'S ORDER IN LIGHT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully submit this request for emergency clarification that the

~ ~

\) '\::following individuals, who are now subject to a pending Emergency Motion to for Leave to File

~ ~~Second "'-

Amended Complaint [Dtk. No. 39] with specific allegations, will be subject to the same

~ ~~ ~injunctive relief as ordered in the Court's Amended Order of September 26, 2017 [Dkt. No. 17]

~

~ 'l..~nd V)

Endorsed Order of September 29, 2017 [Dkt. No. 28].

~ ~ $~ ~~~~ppointments '\1\.

Q

Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request this clarification due to their imminent with ICE and/or departure dates, as set forth below:

~~~~~

['. -t - . {:-

' ~
'~......
~ ~

~~
\)
~

~~ ~~

NAME I. ARINA, Ester 2. BANTURINO, Yahya 3. CANDRA, Bobby 4. CHRISMILIAN, Pinta 5. FNU, Nico 6. GUNARDI, Kajono

ICE REPORT-IN DEPARTURE

DATE

DATE

10/13/2017

11/9/2017

10/6/2017

11/5/2017

10/16/2017

11116/2017

10/10/2017

10/1112017

11/11/2017

10/19/2017

11/19/2017

4828-4935-1761

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, EVA GRASJE, SYANE KALOH, JOHN LONDA, MELDY LUMANGKUN, MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS, MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS, TERRY ROMBOT, AGUS SETIAWAN, FREDDY SOMBAH, POPPY SOMBAH, HERU KURNIAWAN, DEETJE PATTY, ROY ANTOUW, DEBBY WALANDOW, ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO, VIRAKE BUDIHARDJO, MICHAEL EMAN, HESTI RIMPER, GREACE MAMBO, SONNY MAMBO, EDDY PANJAITAN, LINARIA SINAGA, CHRISTIAN PENTURY, ELVIS SEPANG, ESTER ARINA, YAYHA BANTURINO, JODY SOEBAGYO, PINTA CHRISMILIAN, NICO FNU, WILLY MANDAGI, ADELE TUMBEL, JAMES TOMBENG, JANE PAJOW, GOLTODO PARAPAT, MARGARIET SITOMPUL, SERO RARUNG, STEPHEN RARUNG, HEFRI SENDUK, LAURA RONDONUWU, WENDA CHAPMAN (a/k/a WENDA TAN), SAMUEL WONDAL, JACKLYN LELE, MARKUS SUBROTO, TAMARA TASYA, FELICIA LUKMAN, KAJONO GUNARDI, LENY SUTANTO, BOBBY CANDRA, FRANKY MASSIE, SANDRA SAHERTIAN, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
TIMOTHY STEVENS Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ELAINE C. DUKE Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-11842-PBS

SECOND AMENDED CLASS PETITION FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MANDAMUS AND CLASS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 2 of 40
INTRODUCTION 1. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are Indonesian nationals who, having resided in the United States peaceably for decades, now face imminent removal to Indonesia where they face the very real prospect of persecution, torture, or death due to their Christian faith. Removals for these individuals, who voluntarily identified themselves to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) as part of its “Operation Indonesian Surrender” program, are scheduled to occur within the next four weeks (and, for Petitioners Freddy Sombah and Poppy Sombah, this Wednesday, September 27, 2017). Petitioners/Plaintiffs pray that this Court stay these removals because ICE has denied them the due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by attempting to remove them on a timeframe that prevents them from exercising their right to seek the immigration relief to which they are entitled through motions to reopen their immigration cases. Accordingly, Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals for the purpose of ensuring that everyone in the class is afforded their Fifth Amendment due process protections.
2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class they seek to represent had been permitted to remain in the United States despite immigration infractions, such as visa overstays, through “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” a program established in roughly 20092010, that specifically encouraged Indonesian Christian community members who were subject to final orders of removal to “come out of the shadows,” report to ICE, and voluntarily submit to Orders of Supervision. Petitioners/Plaintiffs accepted that invitation. They are part of roughly 70 individuals remaining in the program, who were living peaceably in their communities pursuant to those Orders of Supervision. That all changed this June, when the Boston ICE Field Office, suddenly began issuing Denials of Stay of Removal and/or Notices of Revocation of Release.
2
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 3 of 40
3. Upon information and belief, Petitioners/Plaintiffs now face imminent removal to Indonesia, a country which they left years ago, and where even the U.S. State Department restricts its own personnel from traveling freely. U.S. Department of State, International Travel Country Reports (April 17, 2017), available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/ country/indonesia.html.
4. U.S. law prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where they would face a likelihood of persecution or torture. Yet despite the clear danger that many of these individuals face in Indonesia due to their Christian faith, ICE is attempting to deport them based on outstanding removal orders that did not take account of intervening changed circumstances which should entitle them to protection. For example, Christians are widely recognized as targets of brutal persecution in Indonesia. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom included Indonesia in its 2017 list of countries of particular concern as a “Tier 2” country, a group of countries which, while less repressive than North Korea, includes Iraq, a nation to which deportations of Christians has been halted by another federal court. Hamama v Adducci, No. 17-cv-011910, 2017 WL 2684477 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2017); U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Indonesia,” 2017 Annual Report, available at http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Indonesia.2017.pdf.
5. The Pew Research Center rated Indonesia high in both government restrictions and social hostilities in its 2017 Report on global religious restrictions. “Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend,” Pew Research Center (Apr. 11, 2017), available at http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/11/global-restrictions-on-religion-risemodestly-in-2015-reversing-downward-trend/.
3
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 4 of 40
6. Despite these dangers Petitioners/Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, whose orders of removal were entered years ago, are facing immediate deportation to Indonesia without any chance to explain the present status of the dangers they would currently face.
7. Petitioners/Plaintiffs cannot be removed to Indonesia without being afforded a process to determine whether, based on current conditions and circumstances, the danger they would face entitles them to protection from removal. Specifically, Petitioners/Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue an order preventing their removal to Indonesia until they are provided with their due process right to a determination of their entitlement to protection in light of changed country conditions or other entitlement to relief.
8. Finally, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the similarly situated members of the putative class, challenge any actual or anticipated detention, which bears no reasonable relationship to any legitimate purpose. Because they cannot be lawfully removed until they have had an opportunity to renew their requests for protection, their detention is not necessary to effectuate their imminent removal. Petitioners/Plaintiffs ask this Court to order their immediate release, absent an individualized determination that they pose a danger or flight risk that requires their detention.
9. Because Petitioners/Plaintiffs are a subset of a larger community impacted by ICE’s sudden and arbitrary change in policy, they seek to obtain relief for themselves and for a class of similarly situated individuals—Christian Indonesians that voluntarily participated in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” who now find themselves subject to Notices of Revocation of Relief or Denials of Stays issued by the Boston Field Office of Enforcement and Removal
4
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 5 of 40
Operations, of U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, that will be executed within weeks.
JURISDICTION
10. This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; the regulations implementing the INA’s asylum provisions; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
11. This Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., and Art. I § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause). This Court may also exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus statute), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedures Act); Art. III of the United States Constitution; Amendment V to the United States Constitution; and the common law. This Court may grant the relief requested herein pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
12. This Court has recently held that an alien’s status as subject to an Order of Supervision is in “custody” for purposes of habeas corpus jurisdiction. Ali v. Napolitano, Civ. No. 12-cv-11384-FDS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104964, *10-13 (July 26, 2013) (Saylor, J.); see also generally Mendonca v. INS, 52 F. Supp. 2d 155, 159 (D. Mass.), aff’d, 201 F.3d 427 (1st Cir 1999) (holding that “custody” includes persons subject to a final order even if they are not in physical custody) (Saris, J.).
5
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 6 of 40
13. This action is not barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (the REAL ID Act of 2005) because this Court may review a question that is independent of the removal process or which cannot be addressed through the available administrative process. See generally Aguilar v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, 510 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2007); Flores-Powell v. Chadbourne, 677 F. Supp. 2d 455, 468 (D. Mass. 2010) (finding that the court may review whether detention violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment). The present action does not challenge the underlying orders of removal. Rather, it seeks to challenge a condition of Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ custody, specifically, ICE’s abrupt change in policy regarding participants in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” and the unfairly compressed timetable of the issuance of the Denials of Stays and/or Notices of Revocation of Release, which are documents attendant to their Orders of Supervision that are preventing Petitioners/Plaintiffs from exercising their due process rights to challenge their final orders of removal in the proper forum: the Immigration Court.
VENUE
14. Venue lies in the District of Massachusetts, the judicial district in which the Boston ICE Field Office Director is located. Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000). The Boston ICE Field Office Director issued the Denials of Stay of Removal, and the Orders of Supervision were issued under that Field Office’s supervision.
PARTIES
15. Petitioner/Plaintiff LIA DEVITRI is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She has been living without incident since July 2010 under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the auspices of
6
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 7 of 40
Operation Indonesian Surrender. She was ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 10, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff AGUS SETIAWAN; they have four U.S. citizen children, one of whom suffers from cerebral palsy.
16. Petitioner/Plaintiff EVA GRASJE is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2007. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, she received a Denial of Stay on February 28, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff MELDY LUMANGKUN; they have one non-U.S. citizen child and two U.S. citizen children, one of whom is hearing impaired. She is a deacon in the Rochester Indonesian Seventh Day Adventist Church.
17. Petitioner/Plaintiff SYANE KALOH is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2005. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, she received a Denial of Stay on September 5, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 and to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff JOHN LONDA; they have one non-U.S. citizen child who was granted relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (“DACA”), and one U.S. citizen child, age 14.
7
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 8 of 40
18. Petitioner/Plaintiff JOHN LONDA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2007. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, he received a Denial of Stay on September 5, 2017, signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff SYANE KALOH; they have one non-U.S. citizen child who was granted relief under DACA, and one U.S. citizen child, age 14.
19. Petitioner/Plaintiff MELDY LUMANGKUN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and has been subject to a final order of removal since 2007. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, he received a Denial of Stay on February 28, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff EVA GRASJE; they have one non-U.S. citizen child and two U.S. citizen children, one of whom is hearing impaired. He is an elder in the Rochester Indonesian Seventh Day Adventist Church.
20. Petitioner/Plaintiff MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He has been living for several years without incident under an Order of Supervision, which he understood to have been granted under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. Without any explanation, during the week of
8
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 9 of 40
September 18, 2017, he received a Denial of Stay signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS; they have three U.S. citizen children, one of whom, age 15, is autistic and requires constant supervision and special educational programs.
21. Petitioner/Plaintiff MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She has been living for several years without incident under an Order of Supervision, which she understood to have been granted under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She imminently expects to receive a Denial of Stay signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office; she has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner Petitioner/Plaintiff MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS; they have three U.S. citizen children, one of whom, age 15, is autistic and requires constant supervision and special educational programs.
22. Petitioner/Plaintiff TERRY ROMBOT is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision, but was issued a Notice of Revocation of Release on August 1, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office. He is presently in immigration custody in Plymouth County jail, and is the subject of related case in this District, Rombot v. Cronen, et al., No. 17-cv-11577-PBS.
23. Petitioner/Plaintiff AGUS SETIAWAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since July 2010
9
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 10 of 40
under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been granted under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 10, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff LIA DEVITRI; they have four U.S. citizen children, one of whom suffers from cerebral palsy.
24. Petitioner/Plaintiff FREDDY SOMBAH is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, he received a Denial of Stay of Removal on September 18, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff POPPY SOMBAH; their son was granted relief under DACA. He suffers from various serious medical conditions.
25. Petitioner/Plaintiff POPPY SOMBAH is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2010. Without any explanation, she received a Denial of Stay of Removal on September 18, 2017 signed by Respondent/Defendant CRONEN from the Boston ICE Field Office, and has been ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff FREDDY SOMBAH; their son was granted relief under DACA. She suffers from serious medical conditions.
10
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 11 of 40
26. Petitioner/Plaintiff HERU KURNIAWAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 2010. On August 1, 2017, he was ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff DEETJE PATTY; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 34. Petitioner/Plaintiff HERU KURNIAWAN may be eligible for permanent residence based upon his immediate relative relationship with his daughter, and he has applied for such relief. This status has permitted Petitioner/Plaintiff HERU KURNIAWAN to file a motion to reopen his final order of removal and may permit him to seek permanent residence, but no administrative stay of removal has been granted to him.
27. Petitioner/Plaintiff DEETJE PATTY is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 2010. On August 1, 2017, she was ordered to report to the Manchester Sub-Office on September 25, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on September 27, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff HERU KURNIAWAN; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 34. Petitioner/Plaintiff DEETJE PATTY may be eligible for permanent residence based upon her immediate relative relationship with her daughter and she has applied for such relief. This status has permitted Petitioner/Plaintiff DEETJE PATTY to file a motion to reopen her final order of removal and may permit her to seek permanent residence, but no administrative stay of removal has been granted to her.
11
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 12 of 40
28. Petitioner/Plaintiff ROY ANTOUW is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. He was ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 7, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff DEBBY WALANDOW; they have a U.S. citizen son, age 15, and daughter who will turn 21 years old on December 31, 2017. Upon his elder daughter’s birthday, Petitioner/Plaintiff ROY ANTOUW may be eligible for permanent residence based upon his immediate relative relationship with his daughter. Immediate relative classification would permit Petitioner/Plaintiff ROY ANTOUW to file a motion to reopen his final order of removal and seek permanent residence.
29. Petitioner/Plaintiff DEBBY WALANDOW is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. Although she has been ordered to report to ICE on October 16, 2017, she has purchased a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia with her husband, Petitioner/Plaintiff ROY ANTOUW, on October 7, 2017. Petitioners/Plaintiffs DEBBY WALANDOW and ROY ANTOUW have a U.S. citizen son, age 15, and daughter who will turn 21 years old on December 31, 2017. Upon her elder daughter’s birthday Petitioner/Plaintiff DEBBY WALANDOW may be eligible for permanent residence based upon her immediate relative relationship with her stepdaughter. Immediate relative classification would permit Petitioner/Plaintiff DEBBY WALANDOW to file a motion to reopen her final order of removal and seek permanent residence.
12
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 13 of 40
30. Petitioner/Plaintiff ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. He was ordered to report to ICE on October 3, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 4, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff VIRAKE BANTURINO; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 14.
31. Petitioner/Plaintiff VIRAKE BUDIHARDJO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. She was ordered to report to ICE on October 3, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 4, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO; they have a U.S. citizen daughter, age 14.
32. Petitioner/Plaintiff MICHAEL EMAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since May 20, 2010, under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He was ordered to report to ICE on October 4, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 5, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff HESTI RIMPER; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 and 14.
33. Petitioner/Plaintiff HESTI RIMPER is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She was living without incident since May 20, 2010 under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been granted under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with
13
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 14 of 40
a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff MICHAEL EMAN; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 and 14.
34. Petitioner/Plaintiff GREACE MAMBO (a/k/a/ GREACE RAWUNG) is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 4, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 5, 2017. She is the ex-wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff SONNY MAMBO. She has three U.S. citizen children, ages 4, 12, and 15, who have lived their entire lives in the United States, speak English, and barely understand Indonesian language or culture. Petitioner/Plaintiff MAMBO also anticipates that she will be appointed legal guardian of her U.S. citizen niece on October 17, 2017.
35. Petitioner/Plaintiff SONNY MAMBO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 4, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 5, 2017. He is the ex-husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff GREACE MAMBO. He has three U.S. citizen children, ages 4, 12, and 15, who have lived their entire lives in the United States, speak English, and barely understand Indonesian language or culture.
36. Petitioner/Plaintiff EDDY PANJAITAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He has been living without incident since November 3, 2013 under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been granted under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on
14
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 15 of 40
October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 7, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff LINARIA SINAGA; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 7 and 10.
37. Petitioner/Plaintiff LINARIA SINAGA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She has been living without incident since November 3, 2013 under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been granted under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She was ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 7, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff EDDY PANJAITAN; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 7 and 10.
38. Petitioner/Plaintiff CHRISTIAN PENTURY is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 31, 2010. He was ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on October 11, 2017. Petitioner/Plaintiff PENTURY is the caretaker of his elderly mother, an Indonesian Christian currently in poor health who was granted withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge on the basis that she was more likely than not to be harmed on account of her religion if returned to Indonesia.
39. Petitioner/Plaintiff ELVIS SEPANG is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff ESTER ARINA; they have five U.S. citizen children, ages 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15.
15
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 16 of 40
40. Petitioner/Plaintiff ESTER ARINA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 9, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff ELVIS SEPANG; they have five U.S. citizen children, ages 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15.
41. Petitioner/Plaintiff YAHYA BANTURINO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 5, 2017. Petitioner/Plaintiff YAHYA BANTURINO is a cancer survivor who continues to receive medical care: consisting of follow up visits every six months for clinical assessment, labs including checking a tumor marker, and CT scans to monitor for disease recurrence.
42. Petitioner/Plaintiff JODY SOEBAGYO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since April 22, 2016 under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff PINTA CHRISMILIAN; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 7 and 14.
43. Petitioner/Plaintiff PINTA CHRISMILIAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She was living without incident since April 22, 2016 under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the
16
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 17 of 40
auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 10, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff JODY SOEBAGYO; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 7 and 14.
44. Petitioner/Plaintiff NICO FNU is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since June 15, 2016 under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 11, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesian on November 11, 2017. He has two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 weeks and 1 year.
45. Petitioner/Plaintiff WILLY MANDAGI is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff ADELE TUMBEL; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 13 and 17.
46. Petitioner/Plaintiff ADELE TUMBEL is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 1, 2010. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff WILLY MANDAGI; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 13 and 17.
47. Petitioner/Plaintiff JAMES TOMBENG is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since October 13,
17
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 18 of 40
2010, under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 13, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff JANE PAJOW; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 and 17. Their oldest son has enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and departs for boot camp on August 20, 2018.
48. Petitioner/Plaintiff JANE PAJOW is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She was living without incident since October 13, 2010, under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 13, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff JAMES TOMBENG; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 11 and 17. Their oldest son has enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and departs for boot camp on August 20, 2018.
49. Petitioner/Plaintiff GOLTODO PARAPAT is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since October 13, 2010, under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 5, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff MARGARIET SITOMPUL; they have three U.S. citizen children, ages 5, 5, and 7.
50. Petitioner/Plaintiff MARGARIET SITOMPUL is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since
18
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 19 of 40
October 13, 2010, under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 5, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff GOLTODO PARAPAT; they have three U.S. citizen children, ages 5, 5, and 7.
51. Petitioner/Plaintiff SERO RARUNG is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since April 10, 2014, under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 17, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 17, 2017. Petitioner/Plaintiff SERO RARUNG is widowed, having lost his wife of 32 years after she succumbed to a twelve-year illness due to kidney failure. He is currently under the medical care of a doctor due to difficulty breathing and high blood pressure.
52. Petitioner/Plaintiff STEPHEN RARUNG is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since April 10, 2014. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 17, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 17, 2017. He is the son of Petitioner/Plaintiff STEPHEN RARUNG and lost his mother to kidney failure in July 2013.
53. Petitioner/Plaintiff HEFRI SENDUK is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since August 31, 2010. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to
19
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 20 of 40
Indonesia on November 6, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff LAURA RONDONUWU. They have two U.S. citizen children, ages 10 and 11.
54. Petitioner/Plaintiff LAURA RONDONUWU is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff HEFRI SENDUK. They have two U.S. citizen children, ages 10 and 11.
55. Petitioner/Plaintiff WENDA CHAPMAN (a/k/a/ WENDA TAN) is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She was living without incident since October 13, 2010, under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 19, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 19, 2017. Her husband is a U.S. citizen and she has one U.S. citizen so from a previous marriage, age 11.
56. Petitioner/Plaintiff JACLYN LELE is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She was living without incident since May 6, 2014 under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 and to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. Her husband is an applicant for asylum before the Boston Immigration Court. From a prior relationship, Petitioner/Plaintiff JACLYN LELE has one U.S. citizen child, age 7.
20
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 21 of 40
57. Petitioner/Plaintiff SAMUEL WONDAL is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 3, 2010. He reported to ICE on September 11, 2017 and is scheduled to depart to Indonesia on October 17, 2017. His wife is currently pursuing an application for cancellation of removal at the Boston Immigration Court based upon her seventeen year residence in the United States and the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship the couple’s two U.S. citizen children, ages 8 and 10, will endure if their mother is removed from the United States.
58. Petitioner/Plaintiff MARKUS SUBROTO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 13, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff TAMARA TASYA; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 12 and 15.
59. Petitioner/Plaintiff TAMARA TASYA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 2, 2010. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 13, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 13, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff MARKUS SUBROTO; they have two U.S. citizen children, ages 12 and 15.
60. Petitioner/Plaintiff FELICIA LUKMAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. She was living without incident since May 31, 2016 under an Order of Supervision which she understood to have been issued under the
21
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 22 of 40
auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 5, 2017. Petitioner/Plaintiff FELICIA LUKMAN entered the United States in June 2008 at age 15, but due to her age, did not qualify for DACA. She graduated from University of New Hampshire in 2015 majoring in Biology Medical and currently works as a Laboratory Technician at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire.
61. Petitioner/Plaintiff KAJONO GUNARDI is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since November 13, 2013, under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 19, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 19, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff LENY SUTANTO; they have three children, ages 20, 24, and 27, all of whom are DACA recipients and are currently attending college and university in the United States.
62. Petitioner/Plaintiff LENY SUTANTO is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith, faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since November 13, 2013, under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the auspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff KAJONO GUNARDI; they have three children, ages 20, 24, and 27, all of whom are DACA recipients and are currently attending college and university in the United States.
63. Petitioner/Plaintiff BOBBY CANDRA is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is subject to a final order of removal. He was living without incident since June 6, 2013
22
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 23 of 40
under an Order of Supervision which he understood to have been issued under the asuspices of Operation Indonesian Surrender. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 16, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 16, 2017. He has three U.S. citizen children, ages 6, 13, and 15.
64. Petitioner/Plaintiff FRANKY MASSIE is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. He was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 1, 2010. He has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. He is the husband of Petitioner/Plaintiff SANDRA SAHERTIAN. Petitioner/Plaintiff FRANKY MASSIE suffers from a chronic lung condition and respiratory disease stemming from a lung lobectomy performed in 2002. These conditions require regular medical care and are sufficiently debilitating so that he cannot work, cannot travel by air, and is dependent upon his wife.
65. Petitioner/Plaintiff SANDRA SAHERTIAN is a national of Indonesia of Christian faith who is a participant in the Operation Indonesian Surrender Program and subject to a final order of removal. She was living under an Order of Supervision without incident since September 1, 2010. She has been ordered to report to ICE on October 6, 2017 with a plane ticket to depart to Indonesia on November 6, 2017. She is the wife of Petitioner/Plaintiff FRANKY MASSIE; who suffers from a severe medical condition and for whom Petitioner/Plaintiff provides financial, emotional, and spiritual support.
66. Respondent/Defendant CHRIS M. CRONEN is the Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is sued in his official capacity. The Field Office Director has responsibility for and authority over
23
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 24 of 40
the detention and removal of noncitizens within the Boston Region, and is their custodian, for purposes of habeas corpus. Respondent/Defendant CRONEN’s office is in Burlington, Massachusetts.
67. Respondent/Defendant TIMOTHY STEVENS is Manchester Sub-Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is sued in his official capacity. The Manchester Sub-Office, which reports to Respondent/Defendant CRONEN, has responsibility for the detention and removal of certain noncitizens and is the sub-office of the Boston Region to which many of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have been ordered to report.
68. Respondent/Defendant ELAINE C. DUKE is the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and is sued in her official capacity. Respondent/Defendant CRONEN reports to Acting Secretary Duke, who therefore has supervisory responsibility for and authority over the detention and removal of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
69. Consistent with U.S. obligations under the CAT, the INA prohibits the U.S. government from removing a noncitizen to a country where he or she is more likely than not to face persecution or torture.
70. Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), “Restriction on Removal to a country where alien’s life or freedom would be threatened,” codifies the nonrefoulement obligation of the Refugee Act. The provision is a mandatory prohibition on removing noncitizens to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on the grounds of race, religion, nationality,
24
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 25 of 40
membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Apart from certain specified exceptions, any individual who can demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted on one of the five protected grounds is entitled to this statutorily mandated protection. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) (holding that alien is entitled to relief from deportation if he is more likely than not to face persecution on one of the specified grounds following his deportation).
71. The other prohibition on removal tracks the CAT’s prohibition on removal of noncitizens to countries where they would face torture. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-18 (implementing the CAT’s provisions with regard to withholding of removal); FARRA, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G., Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (Oct. 21, 1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231); U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 1, P 1, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
72. Under the CAT, an individual may not be removed if “it is more likely than not that [the individual] would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); torture may be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). The regulations provide for both withholding of removal under CAT and “deferral of removal.” Whereas withholding of removal is subject to the same exceptions as apply to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), deferral of removal contains no exceptions for people with “particularly serious crimes.” Compare 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(d)(3) with 8 C.F.R. § 208.17.
73. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are also potentially eligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief from persecution that is available to noncitizens who can
25
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 26 of 40
demonstrate that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). “[A]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States… irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). To prevail on an asylum claim, the applicant must establish that there is at least a 10% chance that he or she will be persecuted on account of one of these enumerated grounds. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 439-40 (1987).
74. Noncitizens who have been ordered removed have the statutory right to file motions to reopen their cases, which are governed by certain time and numerical requirements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7). The statute grants special solicitude for noncitizens who are seeking relief from persecution. If the noncitizen is seeking asylum, withholding, or protection under CAT based “on changed country conditions arising in the . . . country to which removal has been ordered,” the statute permits the noncitizen to file a motion to reopen at any time. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) & 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
75. The exception to the numerical and time limits provides a safety valve for bona fide refugees who would otherwise be deported from the United States in violation of U.S. international treaty obligations of nonrefoulement. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Judicial review of a motion to reopen serves as a ‘safety valve’ in the asylum process. . . . Such oversight ‘ensure[s] that the BIA lives by its rules and at least considers new information’ bearing on applicants’ need for and right to relief.”) (citing Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 948 (6th Cir. 2004)).
76. In addition, the Due Process Clause and the INA grant Petitioners/Plaintiffs the right to counsel to challenge their removal, and to a fair proceeding before they are removed
26
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 27 of 40
from the country. 8 U.S.C. § 1362; Leslie v. Attorney General, 611 F.3d 171, 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that the Fifth Amendment and immigration statute affords a noncitizen right to counsel of her own choice); Amadou v. INS, 226 F.3d 724, 726-27 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that noncitizens have “due process right to a full and fair hearing”).
FACTS
ICE Induced Indonesian Christians with Final Removal Orders to Come Forward, But Then Abruptly Moved to Deport Them Without Sufficient Notice.
77. In 2009 and 2010, ICE in Boston began a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender” to induce Christian Indonesian nationals who were residing under a final order of removal to identify themselves to ICE in exchange for the ability to remain in the United States under an Order of Supervision. See “Jeanne Shaheen: Trump should let NH’s Indonesian Community Stay,” Manchester Union Leader (Sept. 10, 2017) (“In 2009, working with these families and members of their church community, my office helped negotiate an agreement with ICE to allow them to remain in New Hampshire and obtain work permits in exchange for a pledge to regularly touch base with ICE.”), available at http://www.unionleader.com/AnotherView-Jeanne-Shaheen-Trump-should-let-NHs-Indonesian-community-stay-09112017.
78. As described by an ICE public affairs official, this was an “humanitarian effort” involving Indonesian churches. See “ICE Seeks Surrender of Illegal Immigrants,” Foster’s Daily Democrat (Sept. 10, 2010) (“‘The whole purpose is bringing folks out of the shadows and saying listen, we’ll work with you. They’re hiding in fear and we don’t want that - no one wants that.’”), available at http://www.fosters.com/article/20100901/GJNEWS_01/709019921. ICE worked with pastors in the Indonesian Christian churches to help identify “upstanding” members of the
27
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 28 of 40
community to participate in this program. Id. Individuals with criminal records were not eligible for the program. Id.
79. Upon information and belief, approximately 100 Christian Indonesian individuals in New England participated in the program, and received Orders of Supervision.
80. Upon information and belief, individuals within this program relied on these Orders of Supervision, generally abided by the conditions imposed by the Orders, and continued to be productive members of their respective communities. In 2012, the program was further limited to individuals with U.S. citizen children and/or spouses. Approximately 70 individuals remain in the Boston region pursuant to that Program.
81. Upon information and belief, in or about June 2017, ICE advised the community that it would likely be issuing Denials of Stays of Removal and/or Notices of Revocation of Release to Indonesian Christians who were participants in the program. The change in policy came as a shock to the community. Until then, Indonesians with final orders had been living at large, for years, with few restrictions apart from regular reporting requirements. Law abiding individuals, who have been living in the United States for years—in most cases, for nearly two decades—and who have been fully compliant with their conditions of supervision, and all of whom, upon information and belief, have U.S. citizen children or spouses, suddenly found themselves facing orders to obtain tickets back to Indonesia, a country where they will surely face severe persecution. Further, upon information and belief, on August 1, 2017 at a common check-in date for many participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender, at the ICE Sub-Office in Manchester, roughly two dozen participants were ordered by ICE Officers to return roughly 3045 days later with plane tickets to Indonesia. There was no warning about this change, and no
28
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 29 of 40
reasonable opportunity for Petitioner/Plaintiffs to research and understand their rights and seek appropriate relief in an appropriate forum.
82. Persecution of Christian minorities in Indonesia has been well documented, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recognized even since the beginning of Operation Indonesian Surrender when it has engaged in reviewing the type of fact-specific inquiry that Petitioners/Plaintiffs seek to present:
Panoto is a Christian from Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. According to the IJ’s decision, Panoto testified that she experienced persecution as an Indonesian Christian and attributed the following incidents to her religious identity. On Christmas Eve in 2000, a member of Panoto’s congregation found a black box outside their church. Police officers determined that the item was a bomb and removed it before it could detonate. Panoto testified that local authorities did not investigate the event further. Approximately six months later, in June 2001, Panoto was riding on a ferry boat when it was hijacked by Muslim extremists. Once aboard, the hijackers shouted for the Christian passengers to come forward. Panoto witnessed the militants slit an elderly Christian woman’s throat, killing her. One extremist then yanked Panoto by the hair and slapped her, commanding that she state her faith. Panoto did not reply, and just as he was about to attack her, another hijacker called him away. Panoto v. Holder, 770 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir. 2014) (granting petition for review and vacating order of removal).
Individuals With Old Removal Orders May Have Multiple Bases for Reopening their Cases, Including Changed Country Conditions in Indonesia That Put Them at Risk of Persecution or Torture if Removed.
83. Each of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and members of the putative class may have multiple bases for reopening their removal cases, including recent attainment of eligibility for immediate relative status (such as marriage to a U.S. citizen or a U.S. citizen child’s attainment of the age of the twenty-one), discretionary ineffective assistance of counsel, extraordinary
29
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 30 of 40
circumstances, or changed country conditions in Indonesia, each of which must be carefully adjudicated by an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
84. For example, with respect to country conditions, many of the Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ removal orders predate the significant deterioration in Indonesia and the increasing danger for Christian that has come in part from the rise of the so-called “Islamic State” in Indonesia, as illustrated by an attack in 2016 in Jakarta, the area of Indonesia from which many of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs escaped to come to the U.S.. As reported by the U.S. Department of State: “on January 14, 2016, terrorists using guns and explosives attacked near the Sarinah Plaza in Central Jakarta, killing four civilians, including a foreigner, and injuring 17 others.” Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Information: Indonesia (Apr. 17, 2017), available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/ indonesia.html; see also Jonathan Egmonth, “Islamist Intolerance Poses a Growing Threat to Indonesia’s Minorities, TIME (Apr. 20, 2016), available at http://time.com/4298767/indonesia-intolerance-muslimislamist-minorities-lgbt-christians-hardliners/.
85. At least one other federal district court, facing analogous challenge by a discrete group of noncitizens who were from a country whose level of persecution of Christians had recently increased, in part due to the rise of the Islamic State, permitted a stay of removal to accommodate the filing of motions to reopen. Hamama v. Adducci, No. 17-cv-11901, 2017 WL 2806144 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2017) (issuing preliminary injunction to stay the removal of Christians to Iraq).
Severe Obstacles to Due Process Are Created by ICE’s Immediate Removal Timeline.
30
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 31 of 40
86. ICE’s issuances of Notice of Revocation of Release and/or Denials of Stays has severely impeded Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their due process rights, due to the extraordinarily short time for removal that would preclude the preparation of motions to reopen.
87. Filing motions to reopen requires substantial time and resources. Most take several months and cost several thousand dollars. This process will be even more difficult for those who lack assistance of counsel and/or the means to retain counsel. Those who have retained counsel still face additional hurdles in filing motions to reopen. Attorneys will need time to visit and interview clients, review administrative records and applications for relief from removal previously adjudicated, marshal evidence, and draft pleadings and related papers, all of which is impossible within the compressed timeframe permitted for removal that ICE has set – with deportations set to begin as early as this Wednesday.
88. With respect to motions to be filed for Petitioners/Plaintiffs seeking to reopen their previously-denied applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and/or CAT, the immediate removal timeline infringes upon due process. The First Circuit has stated that, for the purposes of such motions “evidence of changed circumstances must demonstrate an intensification or deterioration of [his] country[‘s] conditions, not their mere continuation.” Marsadu v. Holder, 748 F.3d 55, 58 (1st Cir. 2014). To assess the deterioration of country conditions and, correspondingly, whether the Petitioners/Plaintiffs now has a well-founded fear of religious persecution, the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals will compare evidence presented at the initial adjudication with newly proffered evidence. Id. at 5859.1 On the one hand, without an opportunity to review the administrative record with their
1 A “well-founded fear of persecution” is demonstrated by evidence establishing a “reasonable likelihood” that the Petitioner/Plaintiff will face persecution, “provided that his fears are
(Footnote continued on next page)
31
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 32 of 40
attorneys and adequately prepare pleadings in consideration of this exacting legal standard, the motions to reopen will invariably be denied. On the other hand, failure to file for relief within the immediate removal timeline could result in refoulement. Such a choice clearly does not satisfy the minimum procedural safeguards guaranteed by due process.
89. In considering a similar group of noncitizens subjected to removal on a compressed timetable impinging on their due process rights, another federal court permitted a stay of removal. Hamama v. Adducci, No. 17-cv-11901, 2017 WL 2806144 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2017).
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
90. Petitioners/Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.
91. Plaintiffs/Petitioners bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and as a representative habeas class action for similarly situated persons pursuant to a procedure analogous to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). See Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 889-91 (9th Cir 2003) (holding that the district court did not exceed its habeas jurisdiction in certifying a nationwide
(Footnote continued from previous page)
subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. Marsadu, 748 F.3d at 58 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) ).
To prove that his fears are objectively reasonable, a petitioner typically must either: (a) produce credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a fear of individualized persecution in the future, or (b) he must establish that there is a pattern or practice in his country of nationality of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the petitioner on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
32
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 33 of 40
habeas class), withdrawn and amended on other grounds on reh’g, Ali v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Geraghty v. U.S. Parole Commission, 429 F. Supp. 737, 740 (M.D. Pa. 1977).
92. In addition to the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs, there are numerous other individuals living within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office who were lured into “Operation Indonesian Surrender” under humanitarian pretenses, who are now subject to Orders of Supervision, and whose rights under the United States Constitution and applicable international treaties are infringed by ICE’s immediate removal timeline. Each of these similarly situated individuals is in “custody,” faces imminent removal from the United States, and, as a result, is effectively being deprived of the opportunity to prepare motions to reopen and underlying applications prior to removal. Due process and statutory and treaty protections afforded to persons fearing religious persecution or torture in their home countries compels sufficient time to file. Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the putative class they seek to represent be afforded the opportunity to take such steps and have their arguments heard by an Immigration Court before the government can send them to a country that is now foreign and hostile to them.
93. Each of these similarly situated individuals is entitled to bring a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, to prohibit the Respondents’/Defendants’ attempts to foreclose their access to counsel and ability to prepare filings necessary to seek relief from removal due to changed country conditions in Indonesia, changed familiar status, or any other valid basis for relief.
94. These similarly situated individuals satisfy the numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Reid v. Donelan, 297 F.R.D. 185, 188 (D. Mass.), enforcement granted, 64
33
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 34 of 40
F. Supp. 3d 271 (D. Mass. 2014); Gordon v. Johnson, 300 F.R.D. 28, 30 (D. Mass. 2014); see generally U.S. ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974) (applying class certification concepts to a motion for class certification filed by a petitioner seeking habeas relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated). The proposed class is defined under Rule 23(b)(2) as:
All Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender.” The proposed class falls within the defined categories of Rule 23(b)(2) in that the United States “has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.” Reid, 297 F.R.D. at 192-93 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2)) (“[C]ivil rights actions like this one, where a party charges that another has engaged in unlawful behavior towards a defined group, are ‘prime examples’ of Rule 23(b)(2) classes”).
95. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 70 Indonesian Christian individuals remaining in the Operation Indonesian Surrender program under Orders of Supervisions who are could be part of the proposed class. See George v. Nat’l Water Main Cleaning Co., 286 F.R.D. 168, 173 (D. Mass. 2012) (recognizing that forty or more persons in a class ordinarily satisfies the numerosity requirement). The total number of class members and the varied terms of their Orders of Supervision and the manner and in which the United States will effect their removal from the United States is such that joinder of the claims of all class members would be impracticable.
96. Joinder is also impracticable because some members of the class have limited financial means to bring an individual action for the relief requested herein and some class members may be dissuaded from bringing suit individually for fear of retaliation by the
34
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 35 of 40
government for exercising their rights. This class action is only the first legal step for the putative class members, designed merely to afford them the opportunity to take further legal steps, individually, to protect their individual rights. Judicial economy and the need to expeditiously resolve the claims raised herein also counsel in favor of class treatment.
97. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same course of events—Boston ICE’s “Operation Indonesian Surrender” and its sudden decision to deport the participants of that program—and are based on the same legal arguments.
98. Petitioners/Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no relevant conflicts of interest with other members of the proposed class, nor are any conflicts likely to arise, and Petitioners/Plaintiffs have the ability and incentive to prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel experienced in class action and immigration law.
99. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to the members of the proposed class. These common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the proposed class can be removed without being provided an opportunity to demonstrate that they qualify for relief from persecution or torture based on, inter alia, changed country conditions in Indonesia;
b. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1158, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture impose a mandatory obligation to consider
35
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 36 of 40
Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ and class members’ individualized requests for relief from persecution or torture; and
c. Whether Respondent violated Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ and class members’ constitutional, statutory, and regulatory right to due process and a fair removal hearing by arbitrarily orchestrating a compressed process for removal that deprives them of their rights to reopen their individual immigration cases by giving them no time to make appropriate filings in Immigration Court.
100. Finally, the proposed class is ascertainable because the class is sufficiently definite and provable. The class consists of Christian Indonesian nationals living in New England that participated in “Operation Indonesian Surrender” who are now subject to a final order of removal. Respondent should have records sufficient to identify all persons in the class.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT - PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL TO COUNTRY WHERE INDIVIDUAL WOULD FACE PERSECUTION OR TORTURE
101. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
102. Pursuant to the INA, and to ensure compliance with international treaties for which it is a signatory, the U.S. government is prohibited from removing noncitizens to countries where they are more likely than not to face persecution or torture.
103. The prohibition on removal is mandatory for anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in the applicable statutes and regulations. In addition, where country conditions
36
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 37 of 40
change after an individual has been ordered removed, the INA specifically provides for motions to reopen a removal order in order to renew one’s claims for protection in light of new facts.
104. Petitioners/Plaintiffs, who are facing removal to Indonesia based on stale removal orders, face persecution and/or torture if removed to that country in light of changed circumstances since their cases were first considered. Removing the Petitioners/Plaintiffs without giving them a fair opportunity to raise these issues in Immigration Court violates the INA and international treaties to which the United States is a signatory.
COUNT TWO FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DENIAL OF RIGHT TO REOPEN REMOVAL ORDERS ON ACCOUNT OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ASYLUM/WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL/CAT PROTECTION 105. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
106. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of life or liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
107. The United States government is obligated by federal and international law, to hear the claims of noncitizens, regardless of their status, who have a credible fear of persecution or torture emanating from their home country before they are removed from the United States to that country.
108. Because the danger to the named Petitioners/Plaintiffs and others similarly situated is based on changed country circumstances in Indonesia, they have not received their core procedural entitlement-they have not had an opportunity to have their claims heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, that is, with respect to current conditions, not the conditions that existed at the time their removal order was first issued. Removing the
37
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 38 of 40
Petitioners/Plaintiffs without giving them this opportunity violates due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT THREE - UNLAWFUL DETENTION
109. Petitioners/Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
110. Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ detention violates due process unless it bears a reasonable relationship to the government’s purposes - effectuating removal and protecting against danger.
111. The government’s detention of Petitioners/Plaintiffs bears no reasonable relationship to either purpose. At a minimum, Petitioners/Plaintiffs must be afforded individualized determinations to assess whether their continued detention is justified.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; B. Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction temporarily staying Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ removal, and that of all putative class members, until this action is decided; C. Certify a class defined as “all Indonesian nationals within the jurisdiction of the Boston ICE Field Office, with final orders of removal, who have been, or will be, arrested, detained, or removed by ICE after having participated at any time in “Operation Indonesian Surrender”; D. Name Petitioners/Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class; and appoint Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel; E. Declare that Respondents/Defendants have violated the rights of the class;
38
4838-6528-5969.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 39 of 40

F. Order Respondents/Defendants to provide Petitioners’/Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of all class members and copies of their A files (immigration files) and program descriptions, criteria, or policy memoranda relating to “Operation Indonesian Surrender”;

G. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members to Indonesia without first providing them with sufficient opportunity to establish that, in light of current conditions and the likelihood that they would suffer persecution or torture if removed to Indonesia, they are entitled to protection against such removal, and enter a writ of mandamus for that same purpose;

H. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members to Indonesia until they have been given sufficient time to enable them to file motions to reopen their removal orders and seek stays of removal from the immigration court; specifically, each member of the petitioner class should be given four months to file their motions to reopen, starting when the government provides a copy of the individual’s A-file and the Record of Proceedings to the Petitioner’s immigration counsel (i.e., counsel who has filed a G-28 form or equivalent) or, if the Petitioner does not have counsel, to the Petitioner; a petitioner who does file a motion to reopen will be protected by the stay until such time as the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adjudicate the motion, and the Petitioner has had the opportunity to file a petition for review and seek a stay with the Court of Appeals.

I. Enjoin Respondents/Defendants from transferring Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members outside of the jurisdiction of the New England Region and/or the Boston Field Office;

J. Order Respondents/Defendants to release all Petitioners/Plaintiffs and all putative class members from detention absent an individualized determination by an impartial adjudicator that their detention is justified based on danger or flight risk, which cannot be sufficiently addressed by alternative conditions of release and/or supervision;

K. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to Petitioners/Plaintiffs; and

4838-6528-5969.1

L. Grant such other further relief as is just and equitable. 39

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 44 Filed 10/06/17 Page 40 of 40

Date: October 6, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
By Their Attorneys,
/s/ W. Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101
Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on October 6, 2017.
/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero

40
4838-6528-5969.1

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Petitioners/Plaintiffs hereby propound the following First Set of Interrogatories to Respondents/Defendants, to be answered separately and under oath under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. Definitions As used herein, the identified terms or abbreviations have the following meanings:
1. “DATE” means the exact day, month and year, if ascertainable, or if not, the best approximation thereof (including by relationship to other events).
2. “ICE” means the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. 3. “INTERROGATORY” refers to Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Respondents/Defendants in this action. 4. “PERSON” means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, cooperative, association, joint venture, organization, governmental body, committee, commission, group, or other entity, and any agent or employee of any of those
1
4824-6904-8145.1

individual entities. Provide his or her full name, last known business address and telephone number, and last known business position or title and affiliation
5. “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to the Respondents/Defendants in this action, including all of their departments, agencies, employees and agents, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on their behalf, at their direction, or under their supervision.
B. Instructions 1. Use of the singular tense shall be deemed to include the plural and vice
versa, and use of the masculine pronoun shall be deemed to include both genders. 2. “And” as well as “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the requests any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.
3. Answer each Interrogatory set forth below separately and completely in writing under oath. Your response hereto is to be signed and verified by the person making it, and the objections signed by the attorney making them, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b).
4. In responding to these Interrogatories, furnish all information that is available to you, including information that is available to you or your counsel, or in the possession, custody or control of you or any agent of yours.
5. Each Interrogatory shall be answered fully unless it is objected to in good faith, in which event the reasons for your objection shall be stated in detail.
6. If an objection pertains to only a portion of an Interrogatory, or a word, phrase, or clause contained within it, you are required to state your objection to that portion only and to respond to the remainder of the Interrogatory, using your best efforts to do so.
2
4824-6904-8145.1

7. If any Interrogatory cannot be responded to in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, respond to the extent possible, specifying your inability to respond to the remainder and stating whatever information you have concerning the unanswered portions. If you do not know the answer to an interrogatory, identify the person or persons who would be expected to know the answer.
8. If any information is withheld by you under a claim of privilege, please set forth in your written response for each document or information for which a claim of privilege is made:
(a) Principals. The name and title of the author(s), sender(s), addressee(s), and recipient(s) of the information. (b) Date. The date the document or information was created or transmitted. (c) Publications. The date and title of each person to whom the contents of the information has been disclosed by copy, exhibition, reading, summarization, or otherwise. (d) Descriptions. A description of the nature and subject matter of the information. (e) Privilege. A statement of the privilege(s) and the basis or bases upon which the privilege(s) is or are asserted. 9. These Interrogatories are continuing in nature. Therefore, you are obligated to provide, by way of supplemental responses and documents, whatever information may hereafter be obtained by you, or by anyone on your behalf, that will supplement this request.
3
4824-6904-8145.1

To minimize the burden on Respondents/Defendants, Petitioners/Plaintiffs request that updated responses can be provided on a weekly basis.
10. All responses to these Interrogatories should be produced in Microsoft Word or Excel native format. If Respondents/Defendants opt to produce records in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), records should be produced in the format set forth in Exhibit A.
INTERROGATORIES 1. Please identify every Indonesian national with a final order of removal who is or was subject to an Order of Supervision issued under the authority of the Boston Field Office and/or Manchester Sub-Office from 2009 to the present, and identify which if any of them you contend was a participant in Operation Indonesian Surrender and/or Operation New Hampshire Surrender: A. Full name; B. Date of Birth; C. Alien Number; D. Date of final order of removal; E. Criminal history, if any; F. Whether an attorney or representative has filed an appearance with the
Department of Homeland Security, and if so the name and contact information of that attorney or representative and the date on which he or she filed an appearance; G. Whether a motion to reopen has been filed and/or a stay has been granted, and the court(s) and date(s) of any such motion and/or stay; H. Whether the national has been subject to possible or actual detention; I. Emergency contact information (next of kin).
RESPONSE:
4
4824-6904-8145.1

Respectfully Submitted, PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS By Their Attorneys,

Dated: October 6, 2017

/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101
Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document was served by electronic mail upon William Silvis, Vinita B. Andrapalliyal, and Michael Celone on October 6, 2017.
/s/ Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero

5
4824-6904-8145.1

EXHIBIT A Electronic and Hard Copy Production Specifications for Producing Party

• Mixed production format (images for hard copy and electronic documents, except spreadsheets, presentations, audio and video files, which are to be provided in native file format)
• Black and white images as single-page, Group IV TIFFs, 300 dpi, 1 bit depth • Color images as JPEG images, 150-300 dpi • Concordance/Relativity image load file format (.OPT) • Native files to include corresponding field identifying file path to the native (NATIVE FILE) • OCR / Extracted Text at the document level and provided as a separate text file with the same
naming convention as the TIFF/native, and relative file path identified in the load file (EXTRACTED TEXT) • Metadata load file (.DAT)with the following delimiters and fields:

o Column Delimiter: o New Line Delimiter:

o Quote Delimiter: o Multi-Entry Delimiter:

Field Name

Description

Prod Beg
Prod End Prod Beg Attach
Prod End Attach
Page Count Custodian Author Email From Email To Email CC Email BCC Date Created Date Last Modified Date Received Date Sent Email Subject Document Extension Original Folder Path Filename File Description MD5 Hash Extracted Text Native File

Bates number of the first page of a document (imaged) or the identifying number of an electronic document (native) Bates number of the last page of a document (imaged) Bates range of document family - first page of parent (imaged) or identifying number of parent (native) Bates range of document family - last page of last attachment (imaged) or identifying number of last attachment (native) Total number of pages in an imaged document Document custodian in format Last Name, First Name Author of an e-doc extracted from metadata Author of an email message Main recipient(s) of an email message Recipient(s) of “carbon copies” of an email message Recipient(s) of “blind copies” of an email message Creation date of a native e-doc Date an e-doc was last modified Received date of an email message Sent date of an email message Subject of the email message File extension of native file
Full path to source files (if e-doc or loose email) or folder path contained within a mailstore (if NSF or PST) Original filename of native file Description of native file program or application Unique identifier (“fingerprint”) Relative file path to text file containing OCR / extracted text Relative file path created during processing to link native files to database for review

Electronic/ Native Files
X
X X

Paper/Hard Copy
X
X X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6
4824-6904-8145.1

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________________

)

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,

)

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action

)

No. 17-11842-PBS

CHRIS CRONEN, et al.,

)

)

Respondents/Defendants. )

___________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER November 27, 2017
Saris, C.J. INTRODUCTION
Petitioners are fifty-one Indonesian Christians who fear religious persecution in Indonesia and are subject to final Orders of Removal. All Petitioners reside in New Hampshire. In 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) instituted a humanitarian program called Operation Indonesian Surrender, through which Petitioners were granted Orders of Supervision, allowing them to seek employment and subjecting them to certain mandatory conditions. Petitioners also received temporary stays of removal that were renewed over multiple years. In the summer of 2017, these individuals were informed that they would be removed from the United States. They filed this habeas petition

1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 2 of 22
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,1 raising claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Petitioners seek stays of their removal so that they are not removed before they have the opportunity to file motions to reopen based on “changed country conditions.”
The Court temporarily stayed removal to determine if the Court has jurisdiction. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 20, 2017, at which Respondent Timothy Stevens, an ICE Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer with knowledge of Operation Indonesian Surrender, testified. In advance of the evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction, the Court also received affidavits from Russell F. Hilliard, Esq. (Docket No. 49-1), Reverend Sandra Pontoh (Docket No. 49-2), William Hahn, Esq. (Docket No. 49-3), Susan Church, Esq. (Docket No. 49-4), Trina A. Realmuto (Docket No. 49-5), and Jeffrey A. Winters, Ph.D. (Docket No. 49-6). The Court received declarations from The Honorable Jill H. Dufresne (Docket No. 36-1) and Christopher Gearin (Docket No. 36-2). The only issue before the Court is
1 They also assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 3 of 22
whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court holds that it does.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 Petitioners are fifty-one Christian Indonesian nationals who have lived in the United States for many years. They are all subject to final Orders of Removal. Some individuals have children or spouses who are United States citizens; some have children who are recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”); some have children who have enlisted in the United States military; and some have serious medical conditions. Petitioners claim that, if they are removed to Indonesia, they will face an “alarmingly high and increasing” risk of persecution, including “intimidation, physical harm, and threats to their personal safety and well-being,” based on their Christian religion. Winters Aff. (Docket No. 49-6) ¶ 2. Indonesia is a majority Muslim country. According to Petitioners’ expert, since 2008, the conditions in Indonesia for religious minorities have deteriorated substantially, as the
2 The facts are taken from the allegations in the Second Amended Class Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus and Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“SAC”) (Docket No. 44), the documents, affidavits, and declarations produced in this litigation, and the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. They are largely undisputed.
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 4 of 22
country experiences a “rising tide of extremist Islam” targeting non-Muslim populations. Winters Aff. (Docket No. 49-6) ¶¶ 8-9. The Winters affidavit details numerous examples of violence carried out by Islamic militants directed at Christians, including the burning of churches, riots, and assaults. The affidavit also presents evidence from reports showing that law enforcement in Indonesia is unlikely to provide meaningful protection to religious minorities in the face of violence and intolerance.3
In 2010, in communication with members of the Christian community, ICE began a program called Operation Indonesian Surrender in New Hampshire. For a few weeks in 2010, ICE set up a mobile command center in the parking lot of the Strafford County district courthouse in Dover, New Hampshire. Indonesian nationals with final removal orders were encouraged to identify themselves to ICE either at the mobile command center or soon
3 At least two circuits, including the First Circuit, have recently found that conditions for Christians in Indonesia may warrant relief from removal. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that Indonesian Christian’s motion to reopen “more than me[t] the burden of proof required to establish changed country conditions”); see also Panoto v. Holder, 770 F.3d 43, 46-48 (1st Cir. 2014) (finding that bombs planted at church in late 2000 and religiously motivated ferry hijacking in June 2001 could support finding of past persecution).
4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 5 of 22
afterward.4 In exchange, the program participants were placed under Orders of Supervision (“OSUPs”) and granted temporary stays of removal. These OSUPs allowed the participants to seek employment and also prescribed conditions with which the recipients had to comply, including “appear[ing] in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of [ICE] for identification and for deportation or removal,” e.g., Docket No. 37-2 at 85, informing ICE before traveling outside New England, and submitting to medical or psychiatric examinations at ICE’s request. Petitioners received no oral or written promises that they could remain in this country indefinitely.
Approximately 100 Christian Indonesians are believed to have participated in the program and received OSUPs. They lived and worked under these OSUPs without incident until this year and generally complied with their conditions, including the condition that they not commit crimes. In addition, Petitioners
4 Whether Indonesian citizens who surrendered later were treated the same is in dispute. Attorney Russell F. Hilliard states that, in May 2011, Officer Stevens offered to accept surrenders of additional Indonesians living in New Hampshire and told Hilliard that “the process [they] followed last fall is available to anyone at any time.” Hilliard Aff. (Docket No. 491), Ex. B. At the evidentiary hearing, Officer Stevens testified that, unlike the first group of participants, people who surrendered later were not given an initial 90-day period to file their stay requests.
5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 6 of 22
were granted temporary stays of removal by ICE on a roughly annual basis.
In late 2011, a group of program participants who did not have U.S. citizen children, U.S. citizen spouses, or health issues were told that they would be removed. They were informed that their stay requests were being denied, but they were given the opportunity to have an in-person interview with ICE at its Manchester, New Hampshire office before removal. After the interviews, ICE mailed the participants a notice revoking their OSUPs and confirming their departure from the United States approximately 90 days later.
Six years later, in February 2017, ICE began to notify Petitioners that it would no longer grant stays of removal. ICE advised pastoral leaders in June 2017 that it would be terminating Operation Indonesian Surrender. At this meeting, the leaders were informed that all remaining program participants would be deported, but ICE did not set a timeline for these removals. Based on the community’s experience in 2011, the pastoral leaders believed that interviews would be scheduled with Petitioners before they were deported.
Instead, at an August 1, 2017 check-in appointment pursuant to the OSUP conditions, a group of program participants were told that they would be subject to a “30-30” schedule. They would need to report to ICE at their next 30-day check-in with
6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 7 of 22

tickets to depart for Indonesia 30 days later. This proposed

class action habeas corpus petition was first filed on September

25, 2017, two days before the first Petitioners were scheduled

to be removed. See Docket No. 1.

I. Habeas Jurisdiction

DISCUSSION

Petitioners assert that this Court has habeas jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). In order to bring a habeas petition,

an individual must be in custody. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). “Custody”

is not limited to physical detention. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

542 U.S. 426, 437 (2004). Final orders of removal have been held

to satisfy the custody requirement. See Rosales v. Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733, 735 (5th Cir.

2005); Mendonca v. I.N.S., 52 F. Supp. 2d 155, 159 (D. Mass.

1999), aff’d, 201 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 1999). An alien challenging

the conditions of his immigration OSUP also may be in custody

for habeas purposes. See Ali v. Napolitano, Civil Action No. 12-

11384-FDS, 2013 WL 3929788, at *4–5 (D. Mass. July 26, 2013)

(finding petitioner was in “custody” where he challenged the

restraints on his liberty in his OSUP).

Petitioners are subject to both final Orders of Removal and

OSUPs granted to them as part of Operation Indonesian Surrender.

Although Petitioners need not be physically detained to be in

“custody,” in order for the Court to exercise habeas

7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 8 of 22
jurisdiction, Petitioners must challenge the legality of that non-detention custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (stating detainee must be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). In the cases finding that removal orders placed an alien in custody for section 2241 purposes, those aliens were challenging the constitutionality of their removal orders. See Rosales, 426 F.3d at 735–36 (finding alien under removal order was in custody where he was challenging removal order on due process grounds); Mendonca, 52 F. Supp. 2d at 159, 161–62 (finding alien under removal order was in custody, but declining to exercise jurisdiction because petition challenged discretionary decision). The same is true in the OSUP context. See Alvarez v. Holder, 454 F. App’x 769, 772– 73 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding alien under OSUP was in custody where he challenged order’s conditions on “due process, freedom of association and freedom of speech” grounds); Ali, 2013 WL 3929788, at *4–5 (finding alien under OSUP was in custody where he challenged order’s condition that he report to ICE office indefinitely).
Here, Petitioners “challenge a condition of [their] custody, specifically, ICE’s abrupt change in policy regarding participants in ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender’ and the unfairly compressed timetable of the issuance of the Denials of Stays and/or Notices of Revocation of Release.” SAC ¶ 13.
8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 9 of 22
Essentially, Petitioners argue that the sudden policy change, combined with the 30-30 order, is “preventing [them] from exercising their due process rights” and their statutory right to move to reopen. SAC ¶ 13. Since Petitioners’ challenge is tied to a term of their OSUPs, habeas jurisdiction is proper.
Although Petitioners are in “custody” for habeas purposes, Congress has stripped all federal courts of jurisdiction over section 2241 petitions that challenge certain immigration actions:
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This jurisdictional bar, while absolute, has been held to apply only to ICE’s discretionary decisions in the three enumerated categories, including the decision “to execute removal orders.” See Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482–83 (1999) (limiting reach of provision to “three discrete actions”). Circuit courts have held, however, that the enumerated list includes additional discretionary decisions made in furtherance of one of the “three discrete
9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 10 of 22
actions.” See, e.g., Moussa v. Jenifer, 389 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[A] denial of a stay of deportation is a component of the decision to execute a deportation order.”); Mapoy v. Carroll, 185 F.3d 224, 228 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that challenge to denial of stay “clearly arose” from decision to execute removal order and was not within court’s jurisdiction). II. Motion to Reopen
Petitioners concede, as they must, that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision to execute their removal orders, but they argue that they have a statutory right to move to reopen based on changed country conditions that arose after the Orders of Removal became final.
Congress mandated that ICE may not remove an alien to a country if the government decides that “the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s . . . religion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The duty not to remove is triggered when the alien demonstrates that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of . . . religion” if removed to a particular country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). Mandatory relief from deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) can be based on “changed country conditions” established through a motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 11 of 22
Under the CAT, the United States also has an obligation not to remove aliens to countries where they will be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The regulations implementing the government’s obligations under the CAT state that if an alien “is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal,” he or she “shall be granted withholding of removal” or, at the very least, deferral of removal. Id. § 208.16(c)(4).
Claims for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) or the CAT may be adjudicated in a motion to reopen.5 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3), 1003.23(b)(4). In 1996, Congress codified the right to file a motion to reopen, “transform[ing] the motion to reopen from a regulatory procedure to a statutory form of relief available to the alien.” Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 14 (2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). “The motion to reopen is an ‘important safeguard’ intended ‘to ensure a proper and lawful disposition’ of immigration proceedings.”
5 Petitioners also argue that they may be eligible for asylum, which can be raised in a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3), 1003.23(b)(4), based on the circumstances faced by Christians in Indonesia. When an alien receives asylum status, ICE “shall not remove or return the alien to the alien’s country of nationality.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(1)(A). To petition successfully for asylum, an alien must demonstrate “a wellfounded fear of persecution.” Id. § 1101(a)(42); see also I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 449-50 (1987) (interpreting meaning of “well-founded fear”). The record is unclear on whether all the Petitioners already have filed for asylum and been rejected or whether they are seeking asylum for the first time.
11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 12 of 22
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 242 (2010) (quoting Dada, 554 U.S. at 18). The Supreme Court has characterized the statute as creating an absolute, non-negotiable right: “[E]very alien ordered removed from the United States has a right to file one motion to reopen his or her removal proceedings.” Dada, 554 U.S. at 4-5 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)). The right to file a motion to reopen typically must be exercised within 90 days of receiving a final removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, Congress explicitly set “no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen . . . based on changed country conditions . . . if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
Whether a motion to reopen is actually adjudicated depends on the alien’s continued presence in the country. If an alien is deported prior to filing, a motion to reopen cannot be made by the alien or on her behalf. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(d), 1003.23(b)(1). Furthermore, an alien’s removal from the United States while a motion to reopen is pending “shall constitute a withdrawal of such motion.” Id. §§ 1003.2(d), 1003.23(b)(1).
The difficult question is how to reconcile the jurisdiction-stripping provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) with the statutory right to move to reopen in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Section 1252(g) must be read in conjunction with the rest of the
12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 13 of 22
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), which includes 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), the statutory right to file a motion to reopen. The Supreme Court has noted that the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) “is plain insofar as it guarantees to each alien the right to file one motion to reopen proceedings . . . .” Dada, 554 U.S. at 15 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Dada, where the plain text of a different section involving voluntary departures did not explicitly abolish the right to move to reopen, the Supreme Court was “reluctant” to assume that the statute was designed to remove this important safeguard. Id. at 18.
The problem for Petitioners, though, is that section 1252(g) states unambiguously that “notwithstanding any other provision of law” the Court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim arising from a decision by the government to execute a removal order.
On the other hand, the problem for the government is that if section 1252(g) effectively ensures that this group of Indonesian Christians cannot effectively file their claims of possible persecution and torture before being removed to the country where they are at risk, it would be an unconstitutional deprivation of the statutory right to move to reopen without due process of law because there would be no meaningful opportunity
13

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 14 of 22
to be heard on the motion to reopen. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965))). As stated above, once she is removed, an alien may not file a motion to reopen and any motion to reopen previously filed is deemed withdrawn under the agency’s regulations.
One court has held that applying section 1252(g) in a way that eliminates the right to habeas relief in circumstances similar to this case is a violation of the Suspension Clause. See Hamama v. Adducci, No. 17-cv-11910, 2017 WL 2953050, at *12 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017) (holding that enforcing section 1252(g) against Iraqi Christians who could not realistically file motions to reopen, but claimed that they would face “death, torture, or other persecution” if removed, “would amount to a suspension of the right to habeas corpus”).
The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution dictates that “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2. Congress may decide to create adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief without offending the Suspension Clause. See I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314 n.38
14

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 15 of 22
(2001) (“Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions, provide an adequate substitute through the courts of appeals.”); Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977) (holding that “the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person’s detention does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus”).
Despite the jurisdiction-stripping language of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), this Court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to ensure that there are adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief in the circumstances of this case. If the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) prevented the Court from giving Petitioners an opportunity to raise their claims through fair and effective administrative procedures, the statute would violate the Suspension Clause as applied. III. The Effectiveness and Adequacy of the Administrative
Procedure The government has introduced evidence to support its position that it has procedures in both the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that ensure a full administrative process to handle any motion to reopen and
15

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 16 of 22
accompanying emergency motion to stay removal.6 See Dufresne
Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶¶ 13-19 (describing emergency motion
for stay adjudication process for Immigration Court); Gearin
Decl. (Docket No. 36-2) ¶¶ 9-17 (describing same for BIA).
Petitioners disagree, arguing that the procedures are
insufficient to promptly adjudicate the emergency stays
necessary to keep aliens in the country while their motions to
reopen are pending. See Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶¶ 13-25
(detailing obstacles to obtaining emergency stays of removal in
Immigration Court and BIA).
Emergency stay requests most often are filed by detained
aliens, and the Boston Immigration Court has two Immigration
Judges and staff assigned to the “detained docket.”7 Dufresne
Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 14. The government presents evidence
6 It is not clear from the existing record whether all Petitioners would first file their motions to reopen in the Immigration Court or whether some would file motions to reopen with the BIA in the first instance. 7 Judge Dufresne states in her declaration that the Boston Immigration Court is aware of this pending action and the possibility that Petitioners will file emergency stay requests. Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 19. “[T]he Court Administrator has instructed court staff to be watchful for stay motions accompanied by a motion to reopen and to bring any such motion and stay request to an Immigration Judge’s attention immediately.” Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 19. In contrast, the BIA will only consider a stay request on an expedited emergency basis if the alien is in physical custody. Gearin Decl. (Docket No. 36-2) ¶¶ 9-10; see also Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 14.
16

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 17 of 22
that when the detained docket staff receive a motion to reopen and accompanying emergency motion for stay, they “take immediate action” to provide the Immigration Judge with the motion, stay request, and record of prior proceedings. Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 15. Judge Dufresne states that an Immigration Judge will generally rule on an emergency stay request within one to three days of receiving the motion and will do her best to consider the request before a scheduled removal date. Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 17. If a stay request is granted, ICE is immediately informed by the Immigration Court. Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 18.
A stay is not guaranteed during the pendency of a motion to reopen. It is discretionary and decided by the Immigration Judge on a case-by-case basis. Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 16; see also Gearin Decl. (Docket No. 36-2) ¶ 7 (noting that, at BIA level, stay during motion to reopen adjudication is also discretionary). In ruling on the stay request, an Immigration Judge will consider “the facts and circumstances of the alien’s case and the basis for the alien’s motion to reopen.” Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 11. The Immigration Judge may also consider “the possibility that a stay request or motion may have been prepared and submitted without the alien (or his or her attorney) having sufficient time to obtain . . . all appropriate
17

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 18 of 22
evidence in support of the stay request or motion to reopen.” Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶ 16.
Petitioners present evidence that, despite the procedures intended to streamline emergency stay requests, delays occur. See Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶¶ 13-23. Attorney Realmuto has experienced delays in docketing motions and stay requests at the BIA level. Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 16. Additionally, Petitioners claim that “whether the BIA will adjudicate a stay motion prior to deportation relies entirely on the deportation officer’s discretionary act of communicating to the BIA the actual date and time of deportation.” Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 18. Attorney Realmuto cites “at least two cases where ICE affirmatively informed the BIA of particular deportation dates but subsequently -- unbeknownst to the BIA, and without providing the BIA any notice -- moved up the dates of deportation and carried out the removal.” Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 21. Petitioners state that “there is no formal mechanism by which ICE is required to notify the BIA of a change in deportation date and, therefore, no way to ensure that the BIA has a meaningful opportunity to adjudicate the stay motion before deportation.” Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 21. In the Immigration Court, Attorney Realmuto cites delays in receipt of motions for stay, reluctance to rule until deportation is imminent, and dependence on immigration judges’
18

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 19 of 22
schedules as obstacles to adjudication before removal. Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 23.
I find that the Immigration Court’s procedures typically are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief consistent with the Suspension Clause. The procedures in the Immigration Court will also likely be adequate for Petitioners, who at this point are represented by attorneys in a high-profile case, so long as they receive from this Court a reasonable time period for filing the motions to reopen to which they are entitled.8 The Court is concerned, however, that the BIA’s procedures for considering emergency stay requests will not apply to Petitioners because they are not in physical custody. The government shall inform the Court whether Petitioners, who are not detained, will have access to emergency procedures if they must file their original motions to reopen with the BIA. Without a better record, the Court is not prepared to rule that the BIA’s procedures are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief for nondetained persons.
The Court must determine how much time is necessary to file an adequate motion to reopen. Exercising jurisdiction to grant
8 The Immigration Court’s administrative procedures may be inadequate and ineffective in an individual Petitioner’s case, however.
19

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 20 of 22
Petitioners time to effectively use the required administrative process is consistent with Congressional intent. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that habeas relief in petitioner’s case only would result in thirty days to file a petition with court of appeals, as required by statute, “which is consistent with Congressional intent underlying the REAL ID Act”).
The government argues that Petitioners had plenty of time to file the motions to reopen prior to the August 1, 2017 notification. Petitioners argue that the denials of their stay requests earlier in 2017 did not put them on notice that removal was imminent or that the conditions of their OSUPs had changed, because people may remain under OSUPs for years after stay requests are denied. They maintain that, until the 30-30 order, they did not know that deportations would occur so quickly. The Court finds that Petitioners were reasonable in relying on their protected status as long as they complied with the terms of their OSUPs. However, after August 1, 2017, any reliance was no longer reasonable. The Court finds that the August 1, 2017 notification that the protected status would terminate triggered the obligation to file motions to reopen.
Petitioners argue that they need six to twelve weeks after their attorneys receive their comprehensive files containing their full immigration history (“A-files”) to prepare adequate
20

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 21 of 22
motions to reopen.9 See Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 12. Additionally, Petitioners seek a stay of their removal pending appeal: they ask for an injunction against removal to remain in effect until the Immigration Court, BIA, and the First Circuit all have reviewed their motions to reopen. See SAC ¶ H.
The focus in the motions to reopen is on the changed country situation. Petitioners have already filed an expert affidavit on the changes in conditions in Indonesia since 2008, see Winters Aff. (Docket No. 49-6), so the need for the A-file is not necessarily persuasive unless an individual can show a specialized need (like litigation over asylum based on personal circumstances that make targeting more likely). The statute seems to suggest that 90 days from August 1, 2017 might be an appropriate minimum timeframe for assembling a motion to reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting typical time limits for motion to reopen); therefore, the 30-30 order is inadequate. Furthermore, Congress recognized that a longer time period may be appropriate when there is proof of changed country circumstances. See id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (setting “no time limit” on motion to reopen based on changed country conditions).
9 The Court has ordered the government to produce the A-files forthwith. See Docket No. 58. However, the Court has no record as to how many A-files have been produced thus far. The Court also indicated that Petitioners’ attorneys should review the record of prior proceedings in the Immigration Court if necessary. See Docket No. 58.
21

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 65 Filed 11/27/17 Page 22 of 22

The government has fourteen days to file an opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 3). The Court believes it has an adequate record for determining a reasonable time period to file a motion to reopen, but the government has not had a chance to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction. Also, the government shall clarify whether any Petitioners must file motions to reopen before the BIA and whether there will be an opportunity to have an emergency stay request addressed prior to removal.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts I and II in the SAC. This Court dismisses without prejudice Count III addressed in the companion case. See Rombot v. Souza, 1:17-cv-11577-PBS, Docket No. 49; Docket No. 52. The government is hereby temporarily enjoined from removing all Petitioners named in the SAC until the Court rules on the motion for preliminary injunction or until further order of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS

____

Patti B. Saris

Chief United States District Judge

22

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.

)

) Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )

C.A. No. 17–CV–11842–PBS

v. CHRIS CRONEN, et al.,

) ) ) )

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

Respondents. )

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners’ preliminary-injunction motion seeks to circumvent Congress’s immigration

framework. The Court should deny the motion. Petitioners are not likely to succeed on the merits.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over their claims, and Petitioners do not state any plausible claims

anyway. Petitioners also fail to establish irreparable harm absent injunctive relief: they do not show

that they are likely to be removed before the immigration courts can adjudicate their motions to

stay their removals—let alone that they are each likely to face torture or death as a result of

removal. And no other factor supports the extraordinary relief that Petitioners seek.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioners are 51 Indonesian nationals subject to final orders of removal. Second Am.

Compl. (SAC), ECF 34 ¶¶ 15–65. Petitioners stayed in the country despite those orders. See Decl.

of Timothy J. Stevens, ECF 37-2, at 16 ¶ 3. In 2010, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE) officials conducted a time-limited operation to place certain Indonesians subject to final

removal orders under Orders of Supervision (OSUPs) for specified periods of time. Id. ¶¶ 3–5.

ICE initially indicated its intent to move forward with execution of the removal orders in

February 2017. See SAC ¶¶ 16, 19; see also, e.g., ECF 37-2, at 91. On August 1, ICE instructed

certain Petitioners at check-in appointments to return within 30 days with a plane ticket to depart

1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 22
the country within 30 days thereafter. See, e.g., Stevens Decl., ECF 37-2, at 33. Then, 11 Petitioners filed this putative class action on September 26, see ECF 1, along with motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and for a preliminary injunction, see ECF 4. On September 28, Petitioners amended their complaint to add 13 Petitioners. ECF 22. Terry Rombot was the only Petitioner who was taken into immigration detention. See SAC ¶¶ 15–65; Stevens Decl. ¶ 31. This Court later granted his individual habeas petition challenging his detention. See Rombot v. Moniz, Civ. No. 17-cv-11577 (D. Mass.), ECF 52.
The Operative Complaint. Petitioners allege three claims. First, they claim that removing them would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and international treaties such as the Convention Against Torture (CAT) if they are not given “a fair opportunity to raise” claims that they would be persecuted or tortured if they are removed to Indonesia. SAC ¶ 104; see also id. ¶¶ 69, 71, 102–04. Petitioners contend that conditions in Indonesia have changed since their removal orders were issued, and that the INA entitles them to move to reopen their removal orders in light of these “new facts.” Id. ¶ 103. Second, based on those same allegations, Petitioners claim that removing them without providing an opportunity to raise claims based on changed country conditions “violates [the] due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment” because “they have not received their core procedural entitlement . . . to have their claims heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Id. ¶ 108; see also id. ¶¶ 106–08. Third, Petitioners allege that their detention “bears no reasonable relationship” to its purposes and thus constitutes unlawful detention. Id. ¶ 111; see also id. ¶¶ 109–11.
Petitioners allege that “[t]his Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., and Art. I § 9 cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause).” SAC ¶ 11. They also allege that “[t]his Court may also exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 3 of 22
(federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus statute), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure[] Act); Art. III of the United States Constitution; Amendment V to the United States Constitution; and the common law.” Id. According to Petitioners, “[t]his Court may grant the relief requested herein pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Id. Petitioners further allege that they are “in custody” for the purposes of habeas jurisdiction because they are subject to OSUPs. SAC ¶ 12. And they state that this action is not barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)—which generally channels judicial review of removal orders into the federal courts of appeals—because “[t]he present action does not challenge the underlying orders of removal.” Id. ¶ 13.
TRO. On September 26, the Court granted a TRO that stayed the removal of the Petitioners named in the original complaint. ECF 14. Petitioners twice amended their complaint to add Petitioners. ECF 22, 44. The Court twice extended the TRO to the added Petitioners. ECF 28, 61.
Preliminary-Injunction Motion. In their preliminary-injunction motion, Petitioners ask the Court to: (1) “[a]ssume jurisdiction over this matter;” (2) “[i]ssue a preliminary injunction and stay of removal, temporarily prohibiting Petitioners’[] removal, and that of all putative class members, until this action is decided”; (3) order Respondents “to provide Petitioners’[] counsel with a list of all class members and copies of their A files” and various documents “relating to ‘Operation Indonesian Surrender’”; (4) enjoin Respondents “from removing Petitioners[] and all putative class members to Indonesia without first providing them with sufficient opportunity to establish that, in light of current conditions . . . they are entitled to protection against . . . removal”; (5) enjoin Respondents “from removing Petitioners[] and all putative class members to Indonesia” for “four months to file their motions to reopen, starting when the Government provides a copy of the individual’s A-file and the Record of Proceedings,” and, if a Petitioner files a motion to reopen,
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 4 of 22
until the immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) “adjudicate the motion, and the Petitioner has had the opportunity to file a petition for review and seek a stay with the Court of Appeals”; (6) enjoin Respondents “from transferring Petitioners[] and all putative class members outside of the jurisdiction of the Boston Field Office”; (7) order Respondents “to release all Petitioners[] and all putative class members from detention absent an individualized determination . . . that their detention is justified”; and (8) “[g]rant such other . . . relief as is just and equitable.” Prelim. Inj. Mot. (Mot.), ECF 3, at 3–4.
The Court’s Order. On November 27, the Court issued an order ruling that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts One and Two of the SAC and continuing its TRO. ECF 65, at 22 (Order).1 The Court first concluded that Petitioners were “in custody” for the purposes of habeas jurisdiction because they were under subject to final orders of removal as well as OSUPs. Id. at 7– 8. The Court next ruled that while Petitioners received no promises that they could stay in this country indefinitely, id. at 5, they were “reasonable in relying on their protected status so long as they complied with the terms of their OSUPs.” Id. at 20. “The Court [found] that the August 1, 2017 notification that the protected status would terminate triggered the obligation to file motions to reopen.” Id. (August 1 was when some “program participants were told” “to report to ICE at their next 30-day check in with tickets to depart for Indonesia 30 days later.” Id. at 6.)
In finding jurisdiction, the Court stated that “[d]espite the jurisdiction-stripping language of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g),” jurisdiction was proper “under both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [habeas] and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [federal question jurisdiction] to ensure that there are adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief in the circumstances of this case.” Id. at 15. It concluded that
1 The Court dismissed Count Three without prejudice because it was “addressed in the companion case,” Rombot v. Souza, Civ. No. 1:17-cv-11577-PBS (D. Mass.). ECF 65, at 22. Therefore, Respondents do not address that claim in this briefing.
4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 5 of 22
“[i]f the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) prevented the Court from giving Petitioners an opportunity to raise their claims through fair and effective administrative procedures, the statute would violate the Suspension Clause as applied.” Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Court appeared to rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, in which “Congress codified the right to file a motion to reopen, ‘transform[ing] the motion to reopen from a regulatory procedure to a statutory form of relief available to the alien.’” Id. at 11 (quoting Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 14 (2008)).
The Court found “that the Immigration Court’s procedures typically are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief consistent with the Suspension Clause,” and “will also likely be adequate” for Petitioners if “they receive from this Court a reasonable time period for filing the motions to reopen to which they are entitled.” Order 19. The Court stated that “[t]he statue seems to suggest that 90 days from August 1, 2017 might be an appropriate minimum timeframe for assembling a motion to reopen.” Id. at 21. But the Court stated that “[w]ithout a better record, [it] is not prepared to rule that the BIA’s procedures are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief for non-detained persons.” Id.
LEGAL STANDARD “A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy.’” Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)). In deciding a preliminary-injunction motion, the Court “must consider: (1) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether issuing an injunction will burden the defendants less than denying an injunction would burden the plaintiffs; and (4) the effect, if any, on the public interest.” Gonzalez-Droz v. Gonzalez-Colon, 573 F.3d 75, 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “The party seeking the preliminary injunction bears the
5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 6 of 22
burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in its favor.” Esso Std. Oil Co. (Puerto Rico) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2006). Where, as here, a movant asks for a mandatory preliminary injunction, a heightened standard applies. “Because a mandatory preliminary injunction alters rather than preserves the status quo, it normally should be granted only . . . when the exigencies of the situation demand such relief.” Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Citigroup Glob. Markets Inc., 622 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
ARGUMENT The Court should deny Petitioners’ preliminary-injunction motion. Petitioners are not likely to succeed on the merits. This Court lacks jurisdiction over their claims, and even if the Court had jurisdiction, Petitioners fail to plead plausible claims for relief. Further, Petitioners fail to establish that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief. They do not prove that they are likely to face persecution or torture upon removal without an opportunity for their stay motions to be administratively decided. And the remaining factors cut against Petitioners. I. Petitioners do not have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits. They bring claims that are expressly barred by federal law. And that bar does not violate the Suspension Clause. Petitioners’ claims do not sound in habeas, and even in they did, the administrative motion-to-reopen process and the judicial review available in a petition for review provide an adequate substitute for habeas relief. Further, even if the Court had jurisdiction, their claims fail on the merits.
a. The Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners’ claims. Congress has barred federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over Petitioners’ claims. In 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Congress made two rules clear. First, federal district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over claims attacking the federal government’s decision to enforce a
6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 7 of 22
final removal order. Under section 1252(g), except as otherwise provided in section 1252, “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the [Secretary of Homeland Security] to . . . execute removal orders against any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphases added).2 Instead, judicial review is provided through the familiar petition-for-review process in the federal courts of appeals, and the immigration courts, the BIA, and courts of appeals have ample authority to halt the execution of a removal order. See id. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(3)(B). Section 1252(g)’s jurisdictional bar applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory)”—“[e]xcept as” otherwise “provided in” section 1252. Id. This unequivocal language protects the government’s authority to make “discretionary determinations” over whether and when to execute a removal order, Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 485 (1999), and reaches constitutional claims. See Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (“the Real ID Act . . . in the plainest of language, deprives the district courts of jurisdiction in removal cases”).
Second, section 1252 provides that claims arising from the removal process, including a claim seeking review of a final removal order, must first be exhausted administratively and then channeled to the federal courts of appeals through petitions for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That section specifies that a petition for review is the “sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” Id. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added); Ishak, 422 F.3d at 28. Aliens can obtain review, reopening, or stays of removal orders, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(f), 1003.6(b), 1003.23(b)(1)(v)—but only through the established administrative process, with judicial review available in the courts of appeals. The immigration courts and the BIA can adjudicate motions to
2 The Attorney General once exercised this authority, but that authority has been transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 375 n.1 (2005). Many of the INA’s references to the Attorney General are now understood to mean the Secretary. See id.
7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 8 of 22
reopen removal proceedings on the basis of “new facts,” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c), 1003.23(b)(3), and grant stays of removal, id. §§ 1003.2(f), 1003.23(b)(1)(iv).
Section 1252 further provides that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of any cause or claim under” the CAT. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4). This holds true “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory).” Id. Even the courts of appeals may review a cognizable claim “only if [] the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available as of right.” Id. § 1252(d)(1). Section 1252(b) adds that review of “all questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States . . . shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.” Id. § 1252(b)(9). In extraordinary circumstances, the forum for judicial review is through this process, not through habeas. See, e.g., Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 2012) (“grant[ing] the petitioners a temporary stay of removal” where they alleged that the BIA had not yet “adjudicated their motion” that was filed “within hours of [the alien’s] scheduled removal”).
These statutes preclude this Court from exercising jurisdiction over Petitioners’ claims. Petitioners challenge the execution of their final removal orders. See, e.g., Mot. 4 (requesting a stay that “bars Respondents/Defendants from removing Petitioners/Plaintiffs”). Petitioners are thus aliens with “removal orders against” them, this case arises because of DHS’s “decision[s] or action[s]” to “execute [those] removal orders,” and Petitioners’ claims challenge those “decision[s] or action[s].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction” to hear these “claim[s]” in the first instance. Id. Petitioners must instead seek relief in the immigration courts and before the BIA, where they can move to reopen their removal proceedings based on changed country conditions and move to stay their removals. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2, 1003.23. To the extent that
8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 9 of 22
Petitioners ultimately seek judicial review regarding their removal orders, they must file petitions for review with the federal courts of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (d)(1); see also id. § 1252(a)(4) (same for CAT claims); id. § 1252(b)(9) (emphasizing the breadth of this rule).
In its order, the Court seemed to agree that section 1252(g) would ordinarily bar Petitioners’ claims. Order 10 (“Petitioners concede, as they must, that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision to execute their jurisdictional orders . . . .”); see also id. at 13. But the Court stated that “[i]f the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) prevented the Court from giving Petitioners an opportunity to raise their claims through fair and effective administrative procedures, the statute would violate the Suspension Clause as applied.” Id. at 15.
Section 1252(g) does not violate the Suspension Clause here, for two reasons. 1. Petitioners do not raise a cognizable habeas claim. Several defects preclude Petitioners from raising a cognizable habeas claim.3 First, in moving for an injunction, they do not seek release from custody, but rather an order enjoining their removal. Mot. 4. This is not a traditional habeas claim. The Suspension Clause protects core applications of the writ of habeas corpus. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001) (explaining that “at the absolute minimum, the Suspension Clause protects the writ as it existed in 1789” and then analyzing the protections of the writ “[a]t its historical core”). “Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention,” and “[t]he typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”4
3 The Court addressed some arguments raised here when it continued its TRO; those decisions are not binding here. See W Holding Co. v. AIG Ins. Co.-P. R., 748 F.3d 377, 386 (1st Cir. 2014).
4 Before the INA’s enactment in 1952, habeas review was the only mechanism to challenge a deportation order, St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 306. To avoid a scenario where the Executive could exclude or deport aliens based on wholly arbitrary or capricious reasons or procedures, the Supreme Court adopted the principle that the statute “had the effect of precluding judicial intervention in deportation cases except insofar as it was required by the Constitution.” Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 234–35 (1953). Importantly, though, in the traditional challenge to a deportation order,
9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 10 of 22
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008); St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 301 (“At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.”). Thus, even if Petitioners are in ICE custody through their orders of supervision, they seek, in effect, an order continuing their custody, since such custody would necessarily terminate upon removal. “[H]abeas is not [an] appropriate” hook for Petitioners’ claims. Munaf, 561 F.3d at 693.
Second, Petitioners have not exhausted available remedies. It is fundamental that before seeking relief under the habeas writ, administrative remedies must be exhausted. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 793 (2008) (“in other contexts and for prudential reasons this Court has required exhaustion of alternative remedies before a prisoner can seek federal habeas relief”); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 758 (1975) (“federal courts normally will not entertain habeas petitions . . . unless all available . . . remedies have been exhausted”). An exhaustion requirement “is in no sense a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U.S. 128, 132 (1950). Petitioners have sought relief in this Court instead of using the process available in the immigration courts, BIA, and federal appeals courts.
Third, Petitioners’ claims are based on allegedly changed factual circumstances, see Mot. 2, which is not a core use of habeas. Petitioners claim that unless the Court halts their removals, they are be unable to allege changed country conditions in motions to reopen filed in immigration court. Mem. 7–8. Even if Petitioners were correct (and they are not, see infra), factual review is not a traditional role for a habeas court in immigration cases. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 305–06. Under
the alien argued that his removal was not permitted, and thus that his detention in aid of that removal was unlawful and he was entitled to be released into the country—i.e., traditional habeas relief. See, e.g., Heikkila, 345 U.S. at 230 (holding that the statute authorizing the alien’s deportation was unconstitutional). That is not what Petitioners seek.
10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 11 of 22
traditional immigration habeas jurisdiction, “other than the question whether there was some evidence to support the order, the courts generally did not review factual determinations made by the Executive.” Id. at 306. This is because at “its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention,” id. at 301, not the factual justification for removal. Thus it is not a traditional use of habeas to halt the execution of a valid removal order for factual claims to be raised in a separate forum.5 See, e.g., id. (at ratification, habeas “encompassed detentions based on errors of law”).
Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners’ non-cognizable habeas claims. 2. The motion-to-reopen and petition-for-review process is constitutionally adequate. Even if Petitioners’ claims were properly brought through habeas, Congress’s comprehensive review scheme provides Petitioners with a fully adequate, and, thus, constitutional, procedure to reopen their proceedings based on changed country conditions. Congress can, consistent with the Suspension Clause, foreclose a habeas remedy if it provides an adequate substitute. See Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 772. Here, that substitute—the procedure of pursuing relief in the immigration courts and then review in the federal courts of
5 Petitioners’ effort to seek class-wide relief falls also outside the traditional use of habeas. The only power a modern habeas court arguably has that the petition-for-review scheme lacks is the ability to provide class-wide relief.5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; However, aliens cannot “dodge the channeling machinery of section 1252(b)(9) simply by draping individual claims in the mantle of a class action. . . . . [C]ourts must always be wary of strategic behavior designed to sidestep exhaustion requirements. That caveat has obvious relevance when aliens seek to employ the class action format to evade the INA’s channeling requirements.” Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 16–17.
Further, the “applicability to habeas corpus of the rules concerning . . . class actions has engendered considerable debate,” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 294 n.5 (1969), and the Supreme Court has “never decided” whether Rule 23 “is applicable to petitions for habeas corpus relief,” Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 260 n.10 (1984). Given that debate, Congress cannot be said to have suspended the traditional writ when it created an alternate process that is fully adequate to consider individual claims but does not include a mechanism for hearing class claims.
11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 12 of 22
appeals—has been widely held to be adequate and constitutional.6 This allows Petitioners to move to reopen their removal proceedings, even years after their orders are final, if circumstances have changed. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (no time or numerical limits for motions based on materially changed conditions in the country to which alien will be removed). Those courts can stay removal in exigent circumstances and are experts in addressing those issues.
The Court’s prior jurisdictional ruling appeared to base its conclusion that the motion-toreopen and petition-for-review processes may be constitutionally inadequate on the following presumptions: that (1) because the motion-to-reopen process was codified by statute, and does not include a time limit for moving to reopen based upon changed country conditions, Petitioners had a right to have their removals stayed in district court notwithstanding section 1252(g); (2) Petitioners did not incur an obligation to file a motion to reopen until August 1, 2017, Order 20; and (3) the record did not support a conclusion that “the BIA’s procedures are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief for non-detained persons.” Id. at 19.
These presumptions are mistaken. First, while section 1229a does not contain a time limit on moving to reopen based upon changed country conditions, this provision was not designed to allow “aliens [to] repeatedly reopen[] their removal proceedings based on changes that are within
6 See Muka v. Baker, 559 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[b]ecause a petition for review provides an alien with the availability of the same scope of review as a writ of habeas corpus, . . . facially, the limitation on habeas corpus relief in the REAL ID Act does not violate the Suspension Clause.”); Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] potential motion to reopen at the administrative level and the possibility of judicial review thereafter provides the necessary process to alleviate Suspension Clause concerns.”); Alexandre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 1204, 1206 (11th Cir. 2006) (motion-to-reopen procedure with judicial review in courts of appeals “offers the same review as that formerly afforded in habeas corpus” and therefore “is adequate and effective”) (internal citations omitted); Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (similar); Kolkevich v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 501 F.3d 323, 332 (3d Cir. 2007) (similar); cf. Enwonwu v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 22, 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding no merit to argument that REAL ID Act violates Suspension Clause, because court of appeals could fully review the questions of law raised in on a petition for review).
12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 13 of 22
their control . . . . even if the change in personal circumstances will expose the alien to persecution in his home country.” Ming Chen v. Holder, 722 F.3d 63, 66 (1st Cir. 2013); see also Rei Feng Wang v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 283, 287 (1st Cir. 2015). Here, Petitioners focus their litigation around the date that their removals became imminent—a personal, not country-related, circumstance that does not implicate the right that section 1229a is designed to protect.
Indeed, section 1229a does not automatically stay the removal of all who file motions to reopen based on changed country conditions, despite doing so for other categories of motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). This suggests that Congress did not view the right to reopen one’s removal proceedings on the basis of changed country conditions to necessarily include the right to halt the execution of a valid final removal order. Further, section 1229a was enacted in 1996. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L 104–208, Div. C, § 304, 110 Stat. 3009–546 (1996). Section 1252(g), on the other hand, was last substantively amended in 2005, to add the language “(statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title” after “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” REAL ID Act, Pub. L 109–13, § 106, 119 Stat. 231 (2005). That language broadens section 1252(g)’s jurisdictional bar to more clearly include claims that could otherwise implicate the previously enacted section 1229a.
Second, the Court erred in concluding that Petitioners were not obligated to move to reopen their removal proceedings until August 1, 2017. Order 20. According to Petitioners’ expert, conditions in Indonesia for religious minorities began deteriorating in 2008, id. at 3, which predates the operation in question. See Stevens Decl., ECF 37-2 at 19. At that time, Petitioners were all either: (1) under final removal orders and evading immigration authorities, during which time they were certainly responsible for seeking to apply for any available relief from removal; or (2) had
13

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 14 of 22
not yet received final orders of removal and, thus, could have raised country-conditions claims in their underlying removal proceedings. Further, the Court has already found that Petitioners were not promised “that they could remain in this country indefinitely,” Order 5, and their OSUPs did not invalidate their final removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 241.5. There is no basis to conclude that ICE’s grants of temporary stays of removal gave rise to: (1) a settled position of permanent relief from removal; or (2) the right to notice of removal to allow each Petitioner “four months to file their motions to reopen, starting when the government provides a copy of the individual’s A-file and the [ROPs]” and enough time for the immigration court and BIA to “adjudicate the motion, and the Petitioner has had the opportunity to file a petition for review and seek a stay with the Court of Appeals,” Mot. 3, when no law requires any such notice. Petitioners have been subject to final removal orders for years and, unless they obtain legal relief from removal, they are—like anyone else under such orders—removable at ICE’s discretion. It is thus mistaken to conclude that Petitioners were reasonably expected to move to reopen only after removal became imminent, instead of once they believed they had a claim to do so.
Third, as the Court has already found, “[t]he Immigration Court’s procedures typically are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief consistent with the Suspension Clause.” Order 19. Petitioners must establish that, assuming the Suspension Clause could even apply to their claims, the motion-to-reopen and petition-for-review process is so inadequate as to violate the Suspension Clause as applied to them. They do not make that showing.7
7 The Court appears to have also concluded that if it lacks jurisdiction over this petition, Petitioners may be removed prior to having their motions to reopen adjudicated and that, once removed, their motions to reopen would be deemed withdrawn. Order 14; see also id. 12–14 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(d), 1003.23(b)(1)). But the First Circuit has concluded that “the post-departure bar [regulation] cannot be used to abrogate a noncitizen’s statutory right to file a [timely, first] motion to reopen” removal proceedings. Perez Santana v. Holder, 731 F.3d 50, 61 (1st Cir. 2013).
14

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 15 of 22
Petitioners rely on an affidavit of an immigration attorney who has practiced immigration law for nearly twenty years and has communicated with over 100 attorneys regarding “stay-related” issues. Decl. of Trina Realmuto ¶¶ 2–3, ECF 49-5. The attorney relates, secondhand, only a single specific instance in which an immigration court failed to adjudicate a stay motion prior to removal and which appeared to occur only because ICE moved up the date of removal to a date earlier than the one it had provided to the BIA. Id. ¶ 21. On the other hand, Respondents have offered evidence of the efforts made by the immigration courts to adjudicate stay motions as quickly as possible.8 Decl. of Jill Dufresne, ECF 36-1; Decl. of Chris Gearin, ECF 36-2.
Further, Petitioners have now had about nine years since conditions in Indonesia began to decline, Order 3; ten months since ICE began to notify them that it would no longer stay their removals, id. at 6; nearly five months since ICE began to notify them of when they would be removed, id. at 20; and nearly three months since the Court’s first TRO, to seek reopening. ECF 14. Petitioners have not shown that the Suspension Clause mandates the exercise of jurisdiction. Nor can they do so now, given the ample time they have had to request relief in the proper forum. See Order 21 (suggesting that 90 days from August 1 to be a suitable period to assemble a motion to reopen). Indeed, only five Petitioners have motions to reopen currently pending, Declaration of Lamont Taylor, Ex. A ¶ 6, suggesting that Petitioners continue to sit on their rights.
Given the evidence that the administrative courts diligently work to decide all stay motions as quickly as possible, the dearth of specific evidence establishing the inadequacy of the motion-
8 The Court requested that the Government “inform the Court whether Petitioners, who are not detained, will have access to emergency procedures if they must file their original motions with the BIA.” Order 19. Emergency stay motions filed by non-detained individuals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Here, Petitioners had up to 60 days between learning the timetable for their removal dates, which they could choose, see, e.g., Stevens Decl. ECF 37-2, at 91, and, again, Petitioners fail to present evidence that the existing procedures are constitutionally inadequate.
15

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 16 of 22
to-reopen and petition-for-review process as applied, and the abundance of time that Petitioners have had to seek to reopen their removal proceedings, the Suspension Clause does not provide jurisdiction over Petitioners’ claims.
b. Petitioners’ claims would not succeed on the merits. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, Petitioners’ claims would fail on the merits.9 Count One. Petitioners lack Article III standing to bring their claim under the CAT, as implemented through 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–.18, and the INA’s withholding of removal provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), because this Court cannot redress any such injury. To have standing, a “[p]laintiff must have suffered an injury in fact” which “has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and . . . it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Even accepting as true Petitioners’ well-pleaded allegations, they could not obtain relief from this Court for any violation of law regarding CAT, asylum, or withholding of removal, and thus the redressability element is absent. See id. The CAT is not a self-executing treaty, and the INA specifies that the only enforceable CAT or statutory rights are available in removal proceedings or in a petition for review from those proceedings. See supra; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4); Ishak, 422 F.3d at 28. District courts lack jurisdiction to review issues arising from removal proceedings through this mechanism. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9); see Aguilar v. U.S. Immig. & Customs
9 Respondents have not filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. On September 26, the Court ordered Respondents to file a jurisdictional brief and submit documents on the Operation within a week. ECF 19. On October 5, the Court set Petitioners’ date to reply, and deferred preliminary-injunction briefing. Now that the Court has issued a preliminary jurisdictional ruling and set a preliminary-injunction briefing schedule, Respondents respectfully request the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss within 14 days of any preliminary-injunction order.
16

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 17 of 22
Enf't Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2007). Moreover, even the court of appeals may review any otherwise cognizable case “only if [] the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Petitioners failed to exhaust their asylum, withholding, and/or CAT claims through filing motions to reopen their removal proceedings prior to bringing this suit, and, indeed, only five Petitioners currently have any motions to reopening currently pending. Taylor Decl. ¶ 6. Because the Court cannot provide Petitioners with relief under CAT, this claim fails for want of standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.
Count Two. Petitioners claim that removing them without providing an opportunity to raise claims based on changed circumstances in Indonesia “violates [the] due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.” SAC ¶ 108. This claim fails: the procedures available to Petitioners are fully adequate, and they have suffered no prejudice. “Even if a shortfall is shown, prejudice is an essential element of a viable due process claim in this context.” Pulisir v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 302, 311 (1st Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) “A court will find such prejudice only when it is shown that an abridgement of due process is likely to have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Id. Petitioners fail to make this showing.
Petitioners’ assertions do not support a plausible inference of prejudice. They could have filed motions to reopen at any time if they thought that conditions in Indonesia had changed so as to warrant protection from removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), (g). Petitioners allege fear of return because of “persecution, torture, or death due to their Christian faith,” SAC ¶ 1, but they do not, and could not, plausibly allege that such risks became apparent only after they received notice of the timeline for their removals. Further, Petitioners fail to plausibly assert that the Government’s adherence to the existing procedures unlawfully prevent them from filing motions to reopen.
Nor have they established prejudice that justifies class-wide relief. Each Petitioner presents
17

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 18 of 22
a unique set of facts and circumstances with regard to the ultimate viability of their claims, as Petitioners concede, see Mem. 12, which underscores that it is inappropriate for this Court to grant class-wide relief under the Due Process Clause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Count Two thus fails.
II. Petitioners fail to establish irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. Petitioners do not show that they would be irreparably harmed without relief. Irreparable
harm requires “more than conjecture, surmise, or a party’s unsubstantiated fears” about the future. Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004). Yet that is all Petitioners offer. Petitioners identify their irreparable harm as “facing a significant risk of persecution and torture if they are removed to Indonesia.” Mem. 12. They plead no specific allegations as to any individual Petitioner. Rather, they rely upon (1) generalized affidavits and (2) reports of “targeted acts of violence by militant groups” and general actions taken by law enforcement. Id. at 12–14. The only specific governmental action they cite in their motion involves the prosecution of a Christian politician under an anti-blasphemy law. Id. at 14.
These assertions of irreparable harm are insufficient. To start, a Petitioner who has filed a motion to reopen and a motion for a stay in the immigration courts—which she has now had nearly five months from August 1 to do—would be removed in the absence of a preliminary injunction only if the administrative court fails to adjudicate or denies her stay motion. If the motion has been denied, she has nonetheless received an adequate remedy at law, in the form of administrative review. See Charlesbank Equity Fund, 370 F.3d at 162 (“Irreparable harm most often exists where a party has no adequate remedy at law.”). As to the possibility of being removed without having the stay motions adjudicated, Petitioners only offer a single, secondhand instance of a stay motion that was ruled upon after to the individual’s removal, due to ICE’s decision to remove the individual earlier than the date it had previously provided. Realmuto Decl, ¶ 21. This lone instance
18

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 19 of 22
does not make Petitioners’ removal immediate or likely, especially in the face of the evidence that the administrative courts attempt to adjudicate stay motions as quickly as possible. Dufresne Decl., ECF 36-1; Gearin Decl., ECF 36-2. “A threat that is either unlikely to materialize or purely theoretical will not do.” Matos ex rel. Matos v. Clinton Sch. Dist., 367 F.3d 68, 73 (1st Cir. 2004).
Even if they are removed, Petitioners’ generalized evidence of Indonesia’s conditions do not prove that persecution or torture is immediate or likely for each Petitioner. As they concede, “different Petitioners[] have different avenues for immigration relief, depending on their immigration histories.” Mem. 12. Their assertion that “all face a significant risk of persecution and torture if removed to Indonesia” is unsupported by facts that relate to any specific Petitioner.
Further, Petitioners fail to show irreparable harm in the absence of a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring Respondents to produce A-files and ROPs for each Petitioner. As the Court has observed, “the need for the A-file is not necessarily persuasive unless an individual can show a specialized need.” Order 21. Locating, copying, scanning and producing over 50 paper A-files and ROPs imposes an unwarranted burden, because the A-files provide very little (if any) benefit to the vast majority of Petitioners. To successfully move to reopen removal proceedings, each Petitioner must show “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality [where] such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Neither a Petitioner’s A-file, which includes her historical immigration data, nor her ROP, which is a record of her earlier removal proceedings, contains new information regarding changed conditions.10 There is thus no basis to
10 And any files that an alien could conceivably need—e.g., the final removal order, applications for relief filed by the alien, and any findings made during prior removal proceedings— may already be in the alien’s possession, as the alien was present for his or her removal proceedings
19

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 20 of 22
continue this unwarranted production,11 especially given that Petitioners have had ample time to collect the information they could need to reopen their removal proceedings.12
III. The balance of the harms and the public interest favor the Government. The public interest and the Executive Branch’s interest in its enforcement of the
immigration laws, which merge here, also requires rejection of the injunction. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2008). “There is always a public interest in prompt execution of removal orders.” Id. at 436. Further, whenever the Government “is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers . . . irreparable injury.” Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers). The public interest should only be outweighed, and congressional will negated, based on an individual presenting circumstances that would justify a stay based on harm to that person. Basing an injunction on general country conditions contravenes the principle that “a court asked to stay removal cannot simply assume that ‘[o]rdinarily, the balance of hardships will weigh heavily in the applicant’s favor.’” Id. The Court should allow the robust administrative process to operate as Congress intended.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners’ preliminary injunction motion should be denied.
and was able to submit any admissible evidence during those proceedings and receive all evidence upon which DHS sought to rely in litigating the matter. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.32, 1240.7, 1240.11.
11 Congress has made clear which documents an alien in removal proceedings is entitled to receive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(2)(B) (an alien trying to prove he is “lawfully present . . . pursuant to a prior admission” can access a specified set of relevant documents); id. § 1229b(b)(4)(B) (an alien in removal proceedings “shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against” him). BIA precedent affirms that there is no formal discovery process in such proceedings. See Matter of Khalifah, 21 I&N Dec. 107, 112 (BIA 1995) (“[T]here is no right to discovery in deportation proceedings . . . .”); Matter of Magana, 17 I&N Dec. 111, 115 (BIA 1979) (similar).
12 There is certainly no basis for a Petitioner to receive a stay of removal in this Court based on failure to receive an A-file through this litigation, unless that Petitioner has made an individualized showing as to why she needs the file. See Order 21.
20

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 21 of 22

Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 20, 2017

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation
WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal Vinita B. Andrapalliyal Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 598-8085 Fax: (202) 305-7000 vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov

21

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 68 Filed 12/20/17 Page 22 of 22

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

Dated: December 20, 2017

/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice

22

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-cv-11842-PBS
Leave to File Granted on December 22, 2017 [Dkt. No. 70]

PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TO EXTEND STAY OF REMOVAL Absent the stay issued by this Court, dozens of Christian Indonesian nationals – many of
whom have lived in the United States for decades and have U.S. citizen children and were encouraged by ICE to “come out of the shadows” for “humanitarian” reasons through an outreach program ICE itself designed for this particular population – face removal to Indonesia, where there is a great likelihood that they will face persecution or violence due to their faith. The only preliminary injunctive relief Petitioners/Plaintiffs (“Petitioners”) seek is the unremarkable remedy of being allowed a reasonable opportunity to submit their colorable Motions to Reopen in a manner that does not extinguish their rights. Respondents/Defendants’ (“Respondents”) Opposition (“Opp.”) largely ignores this Court’s earlier ruling on its own jurisdiction, and, rather than trying to address the nature of the preliminary relief sought, instead tries to revisit the Court’s jurisdictional ruling.1

1

Respondents claim the Petitioners seek a mandatory preliminary injunction, and

therefore a “heightened” standard for relief applies. Opp. at 6. Petitioners can meet that

standard. But Respondents are wrong. The remedy sought is a traditional prohibitory injunction

as the relief sought is a return to the “last uncontested status which preceded the pending

controversy” – i.e., the time when removal was not imminent. United Steelworkers of Am.,

AFL-CIO v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1987).

4810-9932-2714.4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 12
I. The Court Has Already Correctly Ruled That It Has Jurisdiction. Respondents’ extensive argument concerning jurisdiction is misplaced, as those issues
have already been decided by this Court’s Order of November 27, 2017 [Dkt. No. 65] (“Order”), which held jurisdiction was proper “under both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) to ensure that there are adequate and effective alternatives to habeas corpus relief in the circumstances of this case.” Order at 11. Those issues, which were determined after full briefing and evidentiary hearing, should not be reargued in this motion.2
Moreover, Respondents offer no new arguments regarding jurisdiction in their brief. Respondents first repeat their arguments that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars judicial review over Petitioners’ claims. But Respondents already raised this claim. Respondents’ Brief on Jurisdiction [Dkt. No. 36] at 5-6, 8-9. Petitioners responded, arguing why it is best interpreted to not apply and why, if it applied, it is unconstitutional. Petitioners’ Brief on Jurisdiction [Dkt. No. 49] at 12-13. The Court agreed with Petitioners’ constitutional argument and held that if Section 1252(g) “prevented the Court from giving Petitioners an opportunity to raise their claims through fair and administrative procedures, the statute would violate the Suspension Clause.” Order at 15.
Respondents additionally argue that Petitioners do not present a cognizable habeas claim because they do not “pursue release, but rather [seek] to halt their upcoming removal.” Opp. at 15. This remarkable contention is demonstrably incorrect. As demonstrated by cases like INS

2 Respondents also seek to again revisit already-decided issues through their Opposition by asserting their position that they should be allowed leave to file a motion to dismiss. Opp. at 16, n.9. Petitioners oppose such an effort as both untimely and as mooted by this Court’s Order.

4810-9932-2714.4

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 12
v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), habeas review has always included challenges to removal as well as physical detention.
Respondents, again, seek to distinguish this case from the Eastern District of Michigan’s decision in Hamama, on the grounds that Petitioners are not detained and because their return to Indonesia was prevented not by the government of Indonesia but by the actions of the United States government. Opp. at 17-18. The detention of the petitioner class was only one of several factors considered by the district court in finding jurisdiction in Hamama, which included the time and difficulty in preparing and filing motions to reopen, the fact that removal was a sudden reversal of longstanding policy, the risk of harm after deportation, and the inadequacy of the administrative process in light of these factors together. Hamama v Adducci, 2:17-cv-11910, Opinion & Order Regarding Jurisdiction at 19-24 [Dkt. 64] (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017) (hereinafter, “Hamama I”); Hamama v Adducci, 2:17-cv-11910, Opinion & Order Granting Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 8-11, 15-6 [Dkt. 77] (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2017) (“Hamama II”). Moreover, that the change in policy is the result of an abrupt and unexplained shift in domestic, and not international, policy is simply of no consequence.
Respondents also repeat their contention that the Suspension Clause is not violated here because the administrative motion to reopen and stay process is an adequate alternative to constitutionally guaranteed habeas review. Opp. at 10-17. But the Court has already addressed this contention as well, and concluded that although the Immigration Court’s procedures “typically are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief,” the “BIA’s procedures for considering emergency stay requests will not apply to Petitioners.” Order at 19. As discussed below, Petitioners have provided additional evidence to support that point.

4810-9932-2714.4

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 12
In short, this Court has already properly concluded that it has jurisdiction to hear this matter and to order a stay. Cf. Hamama I (finding jurisdiction and entering stay before deciding how long stay should be in place). The remaining merits issue, only tangentially addressed by Respondents, is the amount of time the stay of removal should remain in place so Petitioners can meaningfully pursue their CAT and asylum claims through the motion to reopen process. II. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits Question That A Continued Stay
Is Necessary. The stay should continue for the following periods: a) The stay should remain in place until Petitioners have had an opportunity to seek a
stay from the circuit in their individual cases, should their motions to reopen be administratively denied by the Board.3 b) Petitioners should have 90 days to file motions to reopen from the time they receive their A Files and record of proceedings; if they fail to do so, they lose the benefit of the stay.4 As an initial matter, the Suspension Clause dictates that Petitioners must be able to remain in the country to seek a stay from the court of appeals. Otherwise, an administrative agency could thwart the judicial review required by the Suspension Clause of Petitioners’ individual CAT and asylum claims.5

3 This is the relief ordered in Hamama. See Hamama II at 33-34.
4 The length of time for Petitioners to proceed through the administrative reopening process will be significantly shorter in this case than it might otherwise be were Petitioners beginning the process in the immigration court. Almost all of the Petitioners appealed their original removal orders to the Board of Immigration Appeals, vesting jurisdiction for their forthcoming Motions to Reopen with the Board. Only Petitioners Dantje Lumingkewas and Djeine Lumintang will be filing motions before the Boston Immigration Court.
5 Respondents cite Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 2012), for the proposition that the court of appeals could issue a stay in an individual case even before the Board denies a motion to reopen. But in Khan the court of appeals issued the stay only after the

4810-9932-2714.4

4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 5 of 12
In addition to the Suspension Clause, the relief requested is required by due process, CAT6, and the withholding and asylum statutes. ICE may not remove an alien to a country if the government determines that “the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s . . . religion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Order at 10. And “Congress codified the right to file a motion to reopen, ‘transform[ing] the motion to reopen from a regulatory procedure to a statutory form of relief available to the alien.’” Id. (quoting Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 14 (2008)).
A meaningful opportunity to pursue a motion to reopen for Petitioners in this case means doing so from inside the country given the grave dangers they face if removed, even if in other circumstances a motion to reopen from abroad might be sufficient. See Perez-Santana v. Holder, 731 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2013). As this Court previously noted, the adjudication of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions could likely prove a pyrrhic exercise if an individual is already removed to a country where they would face persecution. Order at 12. Cf. Hamama I and II (holding that Suspension Clause and due process require Iraqis to have meaningful opportunity to pursue motions to reopen from inside the country, where petitioners face torture if removed and cannot realistically pursue motions from abroad).
Respondents do not seriously contest that Petitioners are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to pursue motions to reopen to raise their CAT and persecution claims. Instead,

Board denied the motion to reopen. And notably, the government argued in that case that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue a stay prior to a ruling from the Board on the motion to reopen.
6 Respondents argue that CAT offers petitioners no rights here because it is not selfexecuting. But as the courts have recognized, CAT was executed by Congress with passage of the FARRA. The First Circuit has thus held that the CAT has been implemented in the United States through regulations and, by way of those regulations, “are now the positive law of the United States.” Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 202 (1st Cir. 2003). Respondents’ argument is accordingly meritless.

4810-9932-2714.4

5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 6 of 12
Respondents assert that Petitioners have had a sufficient opportunity to pursue motions to reopen. But Respondents have not produced any new or additional evidence that, in the absence of a stay, the administrative system is adequate under the unique circumstances of this case. And Respondents’ assertions are contradicted by the record here.
First, Respondents suggest that Petitioners should have pursued motions to reopen while they were under orders of supervision in the program. But this Court has already concluded that Petitioners did not act unreasonably in failing to anticipate Respondents’ abrupt change in deciding to hurriedly remove them.
Second, Respondents note that only 5 Petitioners have thus far filed motions to reopen. Counsel for Petitioners have been working diligently to find individual attorneys to take on these cases, but Respondents have disobeyed this Court’s October 27, 2017 Order to produce the A-Files [Dkt. No. 58], that would permit the pursuit of the available administrative remedies by individual attorneys.
A motion to reopen is a ‘one-shot’ motion that is decided on the papers, without oral argument, which is why the strength of the submission in the first instance will largely determine whether the motion will be granted. See Affidavit of Ilana Etkin Greenstein ¶¶ 11-12 (Exhibit C). See also Declaration of Ira J. Kurzban (author of leading immigration law treatise) at ¶¶ 11-15 (Exhibit D) (explaining steps and time needed to prepare an adequate motion to reopen). Extraordinary efforts have been made to provide pro bono representation to Petitioners, but without sufficient time to prepare the submissions credibly, the ‘right’ to file will be hollow. Greenstein Aff. ¶¶ 6-11 (Ex. C). This is because the Petitioners still lack the administrative records that they would need to review and properly prepare their cases. Id., ¶¶ 13-14.

4810-9932-2714.4

6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 7 of 12
Reviewing the administrative record below is particularly important in changed country conditions cases: in order to understand what has ‘changed’ from the original decision, it is important to know what evidence was presented to the Immigration Court in the first instance. See Marsadu v. Holder, 748 F.3d 55, 58 (1st Cir. 2014) (observing that, for the purpose of a motion to reopen, changed country conditions are measured by the “evidence presented in the initial adjudication with newly proffered evidence”). And, in the absence of an administrative record, an attorney cannot understand the full range of relief that might be available to a Petitioner, and potential waiver is a real concern. See id., ¶ 11 (Ex. C).
Nor can Petitioners simply submit boilerplate or “me too” motions simply because they are all Indonesians. The motions must be tailored to the individual circumstances of each Petitioner. See Declaration of Deborah Anker (Director of Harvard Law School Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and author of leading asylum treatise) at ¶¶ 5-8, Exhibit A (noting that the Board requires that asylum and CAT motions be individualized and not based on generalized evidence); Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1138-1139 (9th Cir. 2016) (granting motion to reopen by Indonesian Christian based on changed circumstances because of voluminous evidence that petitioner faced danger, distinguishing the case from one where the motion to reopen was denied because the Indonesian Christian petitioner “submitted only a single third-party report and his own sworn declaration attesting to increased violence against Christians”).
Seeking review of the administrative record is not an unreasonable request at this posture, especially because the Court ordered Respondents to produce files weeks ago. Respondents’ refusal to comply with this Court’s Order to produce the A-Files has resulted in a waste of time and resources by forcing each Petitioner to file individual FOIA requests. Nevertheless, Petitioners have now secured numerous attorneys who have begun those aspects

4810-9932-2714.4

7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 8 of 12
of case preparation that do not require the administrative record. Accordingly, Petitioners believe that the timeline set forth in Hamama for filing the motions to reopen – 90 days following the receipt of the administrative record – is a reasonable standard for adoption in this case.7
Third, Respondents argue that the stay practice before the Board is sufficient. The Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual states at § 6(d)(i) that “an emergency stay request may be submitted only when an alien is in physical custody and is facing imminent removal.” Because Petitioners are not in physical custody, that mechanism is not available to them.8 Petitioners are likely to succeed on their claims precisely because of the concern that this Court has already identified in its Order “that the BIA’s procedures for considering emergency stay requests will not apply to Petitioners because they are not in physical custody.” Order at 19. This concern has already been borne out in practical terms for some of these Petitioners. When Petitioners Heru Kurniawan and Deetje Patty filed Motions to Reopen before

7 This Court ordered access to the ROPs at the Boston Immigration Court on October 27, 2017 [Dkt. No. 58]. Notification of their partial assembly was confirmed to Petitioners on December 20, 2017, but access remains restricted to on-site review – no duplication or electronic transmittal is permitted, which results in this access being of very limited utility prior to receipt of the FOIA responses with the full A-Files. See Affidavit of J. William Piereson ¶¶ 4-5 (Exhibit G). Notably, it appears that Respondents had access to these AFile records before at least October 17, 2017, when they offered to this Court “Pertinent AFile Records” in response to this Court’s September 27, 2017 Order. See Index of Exhibits in Support of Respondents’ Notice of Production ¶¶ AA-XX [Dkt. No. 37-1].
8 Respondents assert, without citing any authority or evidence, that “[e]mergency stay motions filed by non-detained individuals are evaluated on a case by case basis.” Opp. at 15, n. 8. That assertion is belied by the Respondents’ own evidence. Declaration of Christopher Gearin ¶ 9 [Dkt. No. 36-2] (confirming that the Board deems a stay request an emergency if, inter alia, “the alien is in the physical custody of the DHS.”). The unavailability of this relief is further described in affidavits from experienced immigration counsel submitted on behalf of Petitioners, which show that emergency stays are unavailable where the applicant is not in physical custody. See Greenstein Aff. ¶¶ 17-18 (Ex. C); Affidavit of Enrique F. Mesa, Jr. ¶¶ 7-8 (Exhibit F); Affidavit of Saher Macarius ¶ 11 (Exhibit E).

4810-9932-2714.4

8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 9 of 12
the Board this fall, their concurrent motion to stay was ignored by the Board, presumably because they were deemed not to be in ‘physical custody.’ See Mesa Aff. ¶¶ 7-10 (Ex. F).
Other Petitioners have inquired to the Board and have similarly been advised that they would not be eligible to even submit emergency stay motions because they are not in ‘physical custody’; they have been told that such motions by individuals not in physical custody of ICE or whose deportation is not “imminent” will not be considered or ruled upon. See Piereson Aff. ¶¶ 11-12 (Ex. G); see also Affidavit of R. Linus Chan ¶ 13 (Exhibit B) (discussing difficulty and uncertainty of meeting “imminent removal” requirement).
While ‘non-emergency’ stay motions exist, they provide no meaningful relief in circumstances here because, absent this Court’s order, Petitioners could be ordered by ICE to leave the country at any time due to having volunteered for Operation Indonesian Surrender. The Petitioners seek a stay to be in effect until their motions to reopen are granted, and therefore filing a non-emergency stay motion — which the Board generally rules on simultaneously with the motion to reopen — is not an adequate option or remedy. See Greenstein Aff. ¶¶ 20-21 (Ex. C).
Moreover, the BIA’s demonstrated failure to timely adjudicate stay motions before the removals are carried out (see Affidavit of Trina Realmuto ¶¶ 2–3 [Dkt. No. 49-5]) and its track record of summarily denying motions to stay without adequate consideration of the merits (see Chan Aff. ¶¶ 16-17 (Ex. B)) are especially problematic here, where the basis for the motion is changed country conditions: if the person is already removed to the country where the conditions will lead to their persecution, the harm has already occurred.
The BIA stay practice is simply not sufficiently protective in a situation like that of Petitioners, where their program and orders of supervision were abruptly terminated and they would face obvious and grave danger if removed. In short, without the A-Files and time to

4810-9932-2714.4

9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 10 of 12

prepare motions to reopen, the administrative process will remain illusory. Moreover, the stay must continue through the final administrative adjudication of the motion and a request for a stay in the circuit. The BIA stay process is both in design and in practice inadequate to protect Petitioners.
Finally, Respondents argue that there is no “plausible inference of prejudice” here. Opp. at 17. But because this Court is not being asked to review the individual CAT and asylum claims, the relevant inquiry is not whether Petitioners can show that each will ultimately prevail in their individual motions to reopen. Rather, it is whether Petitioners will be prejudiced by the failure to provide them with a meaningful opportunity to present their claims. See Hamama II (rejecting government’s argument that to assess prejudice, the district court should examine the individual cases). The prejudice here is the denial of a meaningful opportunity to submit a motion to reopen.
Nor is there any question that Petitioners, as Indonesian Christians, have colorable claims to present in their motions to reopen. Petitioners have produced voluminous, unrefuted evidence that country conditions in Indonesia have changed so that Christians are subject to a greater risk of religious persecution. This evidence includes the affidavit of Professor Jeffrey A. Winters [Dkt. No. 49-6], sworn expert testimony which documents in painstaking detail, citing more than 100 sources, the demonstrable persecution, torture and other harms against Christians in Indonesia. See, e.g., Salim, 831 F.3d at 1138-1139 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting dangers Indonesian Christians face and finding that petitioner met the changed circumstances requirement).
III. The Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors Concerning Harm And The Public Interest Strongly Favor Petitioners.
The final factor in evaluating the motion for preliminary injunction militates sharply in favor of Petitioners. After decades of peaceable residence and steady Christian worship,

4810-9932-2714.4

10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 11 of 12

Respondents have advanced no rationale for the need to remove these particular individuals on
any specific timetable, and no harm that would result from Respondents allowing Petitioners to
advance their claims that outweighs the risk of persecution and torture. The harm that
Petitioners would face in being returned to a nation where anti-Christian persecution and
violence is on the rise, is evident from the record.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioners ask this court to grant their Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and extend the stay through the adjudication of their motions to reopen.
Respectfully Submitted,
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
By Their Attorneys,
/s/ W. Daniel Deane W. Daniel Deane (BBO# 568694) Nathan P. Warecki (BBO# 687547) NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101
Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (BBO# 670014) Sydney Pritchett (BBO# 694195) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 345-1000 rrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com
Lee Gelernt (pro hac vice) Anand Balakrishnan (pro hac vice) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St, 18th Flr New York, NY 10004-0000
Matthew R. Segal (BBO# 654489) Adriana Lafaille (BBO# 680210) American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts 211 Congress St. Boston, MA 02110

4810-9932-2714.4

11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72 Filed 01/05/18 Page 12 of 12

(617) 482-3170

Date: January 5, 2018

Gilles Bissonnette (BBO# 669225) American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 (603) 224-5591

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on January 5, 2018.
/s/ W. Daniel Deane

4810-9932-2714.4

12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-1 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-1 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842PBS

Respondents/Defendants.
SWORN DECLARATION OF DEBORAH ANKER
I, Deborah Anker, under oath, depose and say as follows:
1. I am a Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Founder and Director of the Harvard Law School Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. In that capacity, I have supervisory responsibility for a staff of ten persons; I both supervise students working on asylum cases and represent persons seeking asylum in the United States. I have taught immigration, refugee and asylum law to students at Harvard Law School for over thirty years. I am the author of the well-known treatise "Law of Asylum in the United States," and I have published various articles and amicus briefs related to U.S. and international refugee law.
2. In addition to my scholarship, my supervisory responsibilities, and representation of asylum seekers, I stay apprised of developments in immigration and asylum law and in practice by regularly monitoring legal industry publications, published research reports, decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Courts of Appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals, various decisions of immigration judges, administrative training and instructional materials, and relevant news sources. I am also a member of a wide variety of "listservs" and working groups wherein academics and practitioners share recent knowledge and experience.
3. I submit this affidavit to explain the steps an attorney must take to prepare an adequate motion to reopen where the applicant is seeking asylum, withholding of removal or Convention against Torture (“CAT”) protection.
4. Where a person is in removal proceedings, he or she must file a motion to reopen with either the Immigration Court or the Board of Immigration Appeals, depending upon which body last had jurisdiction over the claim. The regulations

4838-4862-3194.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-1 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 4

require “the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation” be included with the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (1). A person filing a motion to reopen in connection with a claim to asylum, withholding or torture protection based on changed country conditions therefore must prepare and file the underlying application for protection. The application and motion must be submitted with evidence showing that circumstances have changed since their last immigration hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) (“The motion shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by the affidavits or other evidentiary material.”). A person who previously filed such an application can file a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions.
5. The applicant must demonstrate not only changed country conditions, but also evidence of how those conditions create a particularized risk.
6. Preparing a motion to reopen requires an investigation of country conditions as they bear upon the individual circumstances of the applicant. It is not sufficient to offer evidence of changed or deteriorated country conditions in general, no matter how severe these changes may be. In all these forms of protection – asylum, withholding or CAT – a person must establish that he or she is at special risk.
7. For example, there may be country condition evidence of increased repression stemming from the government or the population against a given minority religious or ethnic or political group, or evidence of ineffectual state protection. However, except under extreme circumstances, this will not be sufficient to establish an individualized risk to the claimant. Rather, the applicant must show that, for example, his or her family, persons in his region or neighborhood, fellow members of a student group members of a local church, and/or another group with whom he is she is associated have been targeted, or harmed. The applicant may show that threats against him or her have been made, or authorities are aware of his or her relevant activities or associations, in the United States.
8. Adequate investigation and representation requires a lawyer to examine conditions in light of the individual’s personal history and circumstances. Investigation of such particular circumstances requires careful and lengthy interviewing of the applicant to understand his or her relevant personal background and history both in the home country and United States, consultation with persons who know the applicant or knew him or her in the past, experts and relevant international or non-governmental organizations, etc. As noted, in some cases, activities of the applicant in the United States place him or her at greater and particularized risk.
9. This kind of preparation, identification and gathering of relevant evidence requires time. It requires the gathering of corroborating records and declarations from inside and outside the United States.
10. Adequate presentation also requires that a lawyer review the A-File. The A-

4838-4862-3194.1

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-1 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 4
File will contain the record of evidence and pleadings from any prior removal proceedings. Because the changed country conditions motion necessarily focuses upon changes since the initial proceeding, the A-File provides the necessary baseline for comparison. It also may provide basic biographical information relevant to present risks. 11. In older cases, careful A-file review may be particularly important. For example, the applicant may previously have submitted corroborating material such as declarations or records of past harm or threats that are relevant to his or her current circumstances and vulnerability to persecution or torture. This material may not exist in another form or otherwise may be unknown or lost. 12. A-Files are in the custody of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Currently, a FOIA request for an A-File will take several weeks to months to produce. Older requests will be processed more slowly. 13. I estimate that after receiving A-File, it takes between six weeks to three months and sometimes considerably longer, to prepare and file a motion to reopen. 14. A lawyer cannot request a stay until the motion to reopen itself has been properly prepared and filed. The work done to investigate, prepare, and file a motion to reopen must precede the filing of the stay motion either with the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals. A stay motion will not be granted unless an individual makes a prima facie showing of having met the requirements for both the motion to reopen and the underlying protection sought.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 4th day of January, 2018.
Deborah Anker

4838-4862-3194.1

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-2 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-2 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al. Respondents.

Case No. 0:17-cv-11842-PBS

SWORN DECLARATION OF R LINUS CHAN
I, R Linus Chan, under oath, depose and say as follows:
1. I am a resident of Minnesota and make this declaration based upon my own knowledge. This declaration is made in support of Petitioners in the above-referenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this sworn declaration and am competent to testify to them.
2. I received my J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law, cum laude, in 2002. I have worked at the National Immigrant Justice Center as a Senior Staff Attorney at the Detention Project, as a staff attorney and adjunct instructor at the DePaul Asylum and Immigration Law Clinic, and finally as an associate professor of clinical law at the University of Minnesota School Of Law, James H. Binger Center for New Americans, I have been at my current position for the past 4 years.
3. I have worked exclusively as an immigration attorney since 2004 and my practice has focused on removal defense for those in immigration detention, which normally consists of representation in front of the Executive Office of Immigration Review Immigration Courts. This work includes appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
4. During the course of my career I often meet people in immigration detention with final orders of removal whose only remedy from deportation would be to reopen their prior immigration proceedings.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-2 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 4
5. I find these cases to often be difficult, time-consuming and fraught with difficulties.
6. On the logistical side these cases sometimes are dealing with proceedings that are very old, and where the documentation and factual recall of events may be missing or incomplete. Often people may be re-detained far from where the original proceeding occurred, which increases the difficulty in getting accurate documentation and information about a prior proceeding. For instance, a person may be detained in Minnesota facing imminent removal, but their removal proceeding may have occurred in Atlanta or California. In those instances, inquiries and filings must be made in the court of the original proceedings, and must be made by physical US mail as the immigration court system does not have electronic filing.
7. These cases often move extremely quickly as many people do not become aware of the imminent nature of their removal until they are detained, and often it becomes a scramble to both figure out when removal would occur and how much time an individual has to file the motion to reopen.
8. By statute and regulation, when a case is older than 90 days, the only means in which to reopen the case (other than based on an extraordinary sua sponte authority) would be to file a motion based on changed country conditions that give rise to persecution. These type of motions are incredibly fact-specific, and require copious research about the status of foreign countries. This can become more complicated when the country involved is not an English speaking one, and information may be more difficult to come by.
9. For this type of case time is of the utmost importance, as the filing of a Motion to Reopen does not stay removal. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(f). This often requires juggling between considerations of making sure the record is as complete as possible to get a favorable decision on either the instant motion or a motion to stay removal, and making sure the filing is done in time to actually allow relief for the client.
10. The Board of Immigration Appeals has created their own stay system which is outlined in the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. This manual outlines the Board procedures for requesting stays of removal. Board of Appeals Practice Manual Chapter 6.4.
11. First, in order for the Board of Immigration Appeals to consider a stay request, there must be a pending Motion before the Board. This means that one must file the stay only after one completes the actual Motion to Reopen. Second, Motions to stay are automatically categorized into two types of motions, emergency and non-emergency.
12. In my experience a non-emergency stay, which is defined as a stay request where a person is not detained, or detained where removal is not "imminent" is rarely acted upon by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
13. In order to qualify as an "emergency stay" the Board requires that removal be "imminent." This requirement can be hard to meet as the individual ICE officers often do

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-2 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 4
not provide clear or even accurate assessments of removal. Officers often are either not sure of removal dates, or inform attorneys that such information is not allowed to be disclosed. The Board will at times ask for the contact information of the deportation officer, so that they may call them directly.
14. On several occasions during the course of using the emergency stay procedures, I have had individual deportation officers not be available to speak to the Board and the Board would be forced to try and reach another officer in the office. There is usually a frantic atmosphere of calling the emergency stay line (which is only staffed until 5pm EST) and calling ICE officers to make sure that they are receiving communications from the Board. On the handful of occasions where a stay was granted, there has been instances where ICE has had to pull the client from the bus or plane that was due to depart at the last minute.
15. I have filed several different stay motions based on motions to reopen to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and while I have received grants of emergency stays they are not usually based on changed country conditions, but rather on situations that involve the vacatur of criminal convictions.
16. In the context of stay motions for changed country conditions, I recently filed a request that I believe absolutely met the requirements for a motion to reopen. The Board denied the stay request in one line, the entirety of the decision only states, "After consideration of all information, the Board has concluded that there is little likelihood that the motion will be granted. Accordingly the request for a stay of removal is denied."
17. It is my opinion that the stay procedures in place at the Board do not adequately prevent erroneous deportations, as the Board only considers "emergency" stays with imminent removals where information about actual departures can be difficult to obtain. Moreover, because the stay decisions are only considered and made once departure is "imminent" there is not adequate consideration of the merits of the decision.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury on 4th day of January 2018.
Linus Chan

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-3 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-3 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

AFFIDAVIT OF ILANA ETKIN GREENSTEIN, ESQ. I, Ilana Etkin Greenstein, under oath, depose and say as follows: 1. I am an adult resident of Massachusetts and make this affidavit based upon my own knowledge. This Affidavit is made in support of Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the abovereferenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this Affidavit, and would be competent to testify thereto. 2. I am an experience immigration law practitioner, and have served as an attorney in Boston for close to two decades. I have handled proceeding before the Boston Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First, Second and Eleventh Circuits. In addition to handling immigration cases of all kinds, I have routinely served as a mentor to pro bono attorneys who seek to represent indigent individuals through law firms or other voluntary programs. 3. I have filed well over a hundred motions to reopen during the course of my career, including dozens based on changed country conditions, and have, in certain circumstances, also filed motions to stay removal pending adjudication of those motions to reopen both before Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
4830-2280-1242.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-3 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 6
4. In September 2017, I began serving as Senior Technical Assistance Attorney at the Immigration Justice Campaign, a joint initiative of the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). AILA is the largest nationwide association of immigration attorneys in the United States, and it serves as a professional organization for practitioners, and as a liaison with federal immigration authorities such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, as an advocacy group for immigration policy issues, and as a technical support and assistance organization for those involved in the immigration system. It works closely with other major immigration law groups, including the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project (ACLU).
5. AILA and the AIC became aware of the Operation Indonesian Surrender and the government’s unfair policy of attempting to remove individuals prior to their ability to file their colorable motions to reopen during the course of the present litigation.
6. Once this Court stayed Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ removals, AILA, along with AIC and the ACLU, committed substantial resources to helping the Petitioners/Plaintiffs find counsel to be effectively represented. AILA made this commitment because it recognizes that it is a vital to public policy for individuals to both be granted the time to file motions to reopen, and for those motions to be effectively advanced before the immigration courts.
7. I have now been involved with screening each of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ underlying cases, and, based on my extensive experience in immigration law, my review of the country conditions described in the Affidavit of Prof. Jeffrey Winter and other sources, I believe that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have viable claims to reopen their immigration cases based on the changed conditions in Indonesia, and that if properly prepared, those motions will provide Petitioners/Plaintiffs with a viable avenue of relief from removal.

4830-2280-1242.1

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-3 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 6
8. One week after the evidentiary hearing in this matter, AIC organized a training session for motions to reopen, and solicited from help including the AILA’s New England Chapter, the New Hampshire Bar Association, the Association of Pro Bono Counsel, the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project network; those calls for help resulted in nearly 100 individuals participating in overview sessions.
9. However, after describing the amount of work required to prepare a reasonably strong motion to reopen, approximately 30 attorneys agreed to take cases.
10. Those attorneys then were invited to screening sessions held in Boston and New Hampshire, and representation for Petitioners/Plaintiffs was facilitated.
11. As part of the training and mentoring I have been performing, I have advised pro bono counsel that filing a motion to reopen without having reviewed the underlying administrative record should only be done if absolutely necessary to preserve a client’s rights. Reviewing the administrative record below is particularly important in changed country conditions cases: in order to understand what has ‘changed’ from the original decision, it is important to know what evidence was presented to the Immigration Court in the first instance. Most crucially, in the absence of the record an attorney cannot fully understand the full range of relief that might be available to petitioner, and potential waiver is a real concern.
12. Additionally, a motion to reopen is a ‘one-shot’ motion that is decided on the papers, without oral argument or opportunity for supplementation, which is why strength of the submission in the first instance will largely determine whether the motion will be granted.
13. As I understand it, all of the clients who are participating in the mentoring program submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests requesting copies of their “A

4830-2280-1242.1

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-3 Filed 01/05/18 Page 5 of 6
files” shortly after the evidentiary hearing. To the best of my knowledge, DHS has not produced any of the documents requested in the FOIA requests. 14. I also understand that this Court ordered DHS to produce and serve copies of the A files upon the Petitioners/Plaintiffs in October. To the best of my knowledge, DHS has not complied with that order. 15. Moreover, due to the age of the cases, with the original asylum cases generally heard in the late 1990s and early 2000s, contacting prior counsel to obtain copies of the case files has proven largely fruitless. 16. Additionally, while I understand that Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Records of Proceedings for some (though not all) of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have been assembled at the Boston Immigration Court, access is only by appointment and the records cannot be replicated in any way, which has proven very cumbersome. For example, it is impossible for pro bono counsel to photocopy or otherwise record any documents for future reference. This means that it is impossible for them to reference documents while consulting with clients. This makes working with the record very laborious, time-consuming, and ineffective. In short, having the option to review the Record of Proceedings is not a substitute for having a copy of the A file which counsel can have on hand for reference throughout the course of his/her representation. 17. Nearly all of Petitioners/Plaintiffs in this action would be filing their motions to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals. I have reviewed the Declaration of Christopher Gearin of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “Emergency Stay Unit”, which confirms that, pursuant to BIA Practice Manual at § 6(d)(i) “an emergency stay request may be submitted only when an alien is in physical custody and is facing imminent removal.”

4830-2280-1242.1

4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-3 Filed 01/05/18 Page 6 of 6
18. Because Petitioners/Plaintiffs are not in physical custody, that mechanism is not available to them.
19. The BIA Practice Manual at § 6(d)(ii) references a “non-emergency” stay, but nonemergency stays are not effective in this circumstances because, absent this Court’s order, Petitioners could be ordered by ICE to leave the country at any time, but they would not be deemed to be “in physical custody” for “emergency motion” purposes. In my experience, when the BIA deems a motion a “non-emergency,” it adjudicates it in conjunction with the underlying claim. The Board, in other words, adjudicates the motion for a stay at the same time that it adjudicates the motion to reopen, essentially rendering the stay request moot.
20. As such, this Court’s injunction is the only way to protect these Petitioners/Plaintiffs from imminent removal to Indonesia where the country conditions are extremely hostile to Christians and could put them in danger of persecution, torture, or death.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 5th day of January, 2018.
/s/ Ilana Etkin Greenstein, Esq. Ilana Etkin Greenstein, Esq.

4830-2280-1242.1

5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-4 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-4 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-1 1842-PBS

SWORN DECLARATION OF IRA J. KURZBAN
I, Ira J. Kurzban, under oath, depose and say as follows:
1. I am a resident of Florida and make this sworn declaration based upon my own knowledge. This declaration is made in support of Petitioners in the above-referenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this sworn declaration and am competent to testify to them.
2. I received J.D. and M.A. Degrees from the University of California, Berkeley and a B.A. with honors from Syracuse University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa. I am an honorary fellow of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. I have also received the Wasserstein Fellowship at Harvard University Law School.
3. I have been a partner in the law firm of Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, & Pratt P.A. of Miami, Florida for over four decades and I am chair of the firm's immigration department.
4. I am a past-national President and former General Counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. I am also a Fellow of the American Bar Association. I have been named by the National Law Journal as one of the top twenty immigration lawyers in the United States. I have been listed for over thirty years in the Best Lawyers in America for my work in immigration and employment law, and, Lawdragon has listed me as one of the top 500 lawyers in the United States. I also have received the Lawyers of the Americas Award for my work on behalf of human rights in this hemisphere given by the University of Miami, the Jack Wasserman Award for excellence in federal litigation, the Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for excellence in the advancement of immigration law given by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Carol King Award for my efforts in immigration law given by the National Lawyers Guild. In 1986, I was selected by Newsweek Magazine in their commemorative issue on the hundredth anniversary of the Statue of Liberty as one of 100 American heroes for my work on behalf of immigrants.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-4 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 5
5. I was also selected by Esquire Magazine as part of America's New Leadership Class. have been named to Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Law and Who's Who in the World. I was also named as one of the world's twenty-three most highly regarded corporate immigration lawyers in the International Who's Who of Corporate Immigration Lawyers. Both myself individually and my firm have been listed in Chambers as first-tier lawyers in immigration law since 2010.
6. I have litigated over fifty federal cases concerning the rights of aliens including Jean v. Nelson, Commissioner v. Jean, and McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. which I argued before the United States Supreme Court. I have also litigated numerous cases under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act, including one that resulted in a $500-million judgment against Jean-Claude Duvalier, the former dictator Haiti.
7. In my immigration practice of almost forty years, I have litigated hundreds of cases before the immigration courts in the United States. I have represented hundreds of asylum applicants and other applicants seeking relief in the immigration courts. During my career, I have filed thousands of motions before the immigration court including motions to reopen, motions to reconsider, motions to suppress evidence, motions to change venue and other motions pertinent to the defense of a respondent in a removal proceeding, including a motion to reopen due to changed country conditions.
8. As a result of my work in immigration court and before the federal courts on behalf of refugees, I was the first recipient of the Tobias Simon Pro Bono Award presented by the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. I was also one of the founders of the Berkeley Law Foundation, a non-profit organization providing scholarships for law students and law graduates engaged in significant legal assistance programs throughout the United States. I was also one of the founders of Immigrants' List, the first proimmigrant political action committee in the United States.
9. I am an adjunct faculty member in Immigration and Nationality Law at the University of Miami School of Law and have lectured and published extensively in the field of immigration law, including articles in the Harvard Law Review, San Diego Law Review.
10. I am the author of Kurzban's. Immigration Law Sourcebook, the most widely used onevolume immigration source in the United States that has been cited authoritatively by numerous Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals and state Supreme Courts.
11. I make this affidavit to explain the legal work that is required to prepare an adequate Motion to Reopen in an immigration case and to explain why the current system for seeking and obtaining an emergency stay of removal from an immigration judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) is neither reliable nor effective to ensure that Petitioners' stay motions will be heard and adjudicated while a Motion to Reopen is pending.
2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-4 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 5
12. Petitioners are the subjects of final removal orders but argue that they are now eligible for immigration relief based on changed circumstances. In this situation, the proper means by which to raise their claims before the agency is to file a Motion to Reopen with either the immigration court or the BIA, depending on the procedural history of the case. Under the regulations, it is not possible to file a bare bones motion to reopen. To the contrary, the regulations require that a motion to reopen include "the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). In the cases of Petitioners, this means preparing and filing an application for asylum, withholding, or the Convention Against Torture, unless one has already been filed, and all evidence showing that circumstances have changed since their last immigration hearing. It is not enough to assert changed circumstances, the circumstances must be established through evidence, which takes time to gather and assemble. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). And the burden is upon the applicant to show not merely changed circumstances but significant changed circumstances in the country of persecution that would affect the applicant's case in a way that is different than his previous application.
13. Investigating and preparing the Petitioners' Motions to reopen will be time-consuming. Most were unrepresented in their removal proceedings. In many of the cases, counsel filing a Motion to Reopen based on changed circumstances will be making their first appearance on the clients' behalf. An immigration attorney who did not represent the noncitizen in the removal proceeding must obtain the complete record of prior proceedings and any new and previously unavailable evidence, all of which are necessary to permit a full assessment of a claim.
14. To adequately assess the existing record in each case, new counsel will need to obtain both the written and court hearing audio files concerning the individual's case. This includes both the A-File (the comprehensive file of a person's immigration history kept by the Department of Homeland Security) and the Record of Proceedings (the immigration court file kept by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which consists of the immigration courts and the BIA). The A-File is accessed by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, request to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). If a person has had any interaction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it is additionally advisable to file a FOIA request with CBP to obtain records from that agency's file. The Record of Proceedings is accessed by a FOIA request to EOIR. At present, USCIS has a backlog of over 35,000 FOIA requests and generally takes several months to produce an A-file. In my experience, EOIR requests can take several weeks to months. Records that are older can take longer than others.
15. Researching and collecting substantial new evidence to support a Motion to Reopen, particularly evidence to support a motion based on changed country conditions, can take significant time and effort both by the attorney and by the noncitizen and/or his or her family. The reopening statute requires that motions "shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). The implementing regulations further mandate that the evidence is "material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing," as well as either evidence that the
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-4 Filed 01/05/18 Page 5 of 5
immigration judge did not "fully explain[]" the opportunity to apply for relief at the prior hearing or evidence that relief is now available due to "circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the hearing." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
16. Petitioners face imminent removal. To obtain relief from the agency to prevent their removal, they each must seek an emergency stay. But the BIA will not consider a motion for a discretionary or emergency stay unless it is accompanied by an appeal, a Motion to Reopen, or a Motion to Reconsider. It is thus not possible to file with the agency a motion for a stay of removal without also filing the motion to reopen, together with all the supporting documentation for the motion to reopen (as detailed above).
17. The filing of an emergency stay motion does not require ICE to halt a deportation. Instead, either an IJ or the BIA actually must actually grant the stay motion before ICE has a legal obligation to halt a deportation. No legal standard requires that the IJ or the BIA rule on a stay before a person is deported.
18. Attorneys seeking emergency stays of removal from immigration judges face some of the same procedural obstacles as those faced by attorneys seeking emergency stays before the BIA. These include delays in receipt of the stay motion and reluctance to rule on a stay motion until the IJ is satisfied that deportation is imminent. In addition, where a person seeks an emergency stay from an immigration court in conjunction with a motion, the timing for adjudication of the stay motion is entirely dependent on the schedule of that particular immigration judge (as opposed to any number of BIA judges who might adjudicate the stay motion). For example, if a stay motion is filed at 9:00am and deportation is scheduled for 10:00am, the immigration judge may be conducting a hearing in court and, therefore, unaware, unable, or perhaps unwilling to timely adjudicate the emergency stay motion prior to the deportation.
19. Securing an emergency stay before the BIA or immigration judge is challenging and time-consuming even for experienced immigration attorneys. Securing an emergency stay without counsel is nearly impossible. Without competent counsel to advise of the possibility of filing an emergency stay motion in conjunction with a Motion to Reopen, most pro se noncitizens will be unaware of this procedure. Even if they were aware, they must articulate legal arguments and produce new and compelling evidence. These individuals may have little or no formal education and/or face a language barrier that makes this task even more daunting.
20. In short, neither the immigration courts nor the BIA have reliable or sufficient procedures to ensure individualized assessment of the appropriateness of an emergency stay that would provide an opportunity for reasoned decision-making about whether individuals who have filed Motions to Reopen should or should not face removal while those motions are pending.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 2nd

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-5 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-5 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

AFFIDAVIT OF SAHER MACARIUS, ESQ. I, Saher Macarius, under oath, depose and say as follows: 1. I am an adult resident of Massachusetts and make this affidavit based upon my own knowledge. This Affidavit is made in support of Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the abovereferenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this Affidavit, and would be competent to testify thereto. 2. I am an experienced immigration law practitioner and owner of The Law Offices of Saher Joseph Macarius, LLC in Framingham, Massachusetts. I have served as an immigration attorney for decades. I have handled proceedings before the Boston Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. District Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, including dozens of motions to reopen and motions to stay pending adjudication over the course my career. My office was involved in landmark immigration cases which changed immigration law throughout the country such as Succar v. Ashcroft (1st Cir. 2005) and Chedad v. Mukasey (1st Cir. 2008). 3. I am retained counsel to Petitioners/Plaintiffs Kujono Gunardi and Lenny Sutanto. 4. Gunardi and Sutanto were participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender.

4850-3770-4026.1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-5 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 4
5. During their time in the program, Gunardi and Sutanto carefully abided by the terms of their Orders of Supervision (OSUPs), including making reports to ICE as requested.
6. This office filed repeated Form I-246 (Application for Extension of Stay) with ICE on their behalf, and these were routinely granted; ICE was familiar with my clients due their frequent check-ins.
7. Nothing substantive changed about my client’s conduct or status, but unexpectedly, on August 22, 2017, my clients’ application of extension of stay was denied; this was surprising because they had abided by the terms of the OSUPs for years.
8. The denial of that stay does not necessarily indicate that physical removal is imminent; I have many clients who have remained in the United States after denial of I-246 Applications.
9. During the following weeks, despite my office’s best efforts at advocacy, ICE refused to extend the OSUP and in August 2017, demanded that Gunardi and Sutanto return to ICE in 30 days with tickets to Indonesia 30 days thereafter, essentially demanding that they self-deport as a condition of the OSUP.
10. In September 2017, I filed a motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals on grounds including changed country conditions. I was able to do this because our office had retained a version of these clients’ A-Files from earlier in our representation of them, and therefore we were prepared to file on their behalf.
11. I did not file an emergency motion to stay their deportation because it is both the stated practice of the Board pursuant to BIA Practice Manual at § 6(d)(i), and my considerable experience that the Board will not consider motions to stay if the individual is not in physical custody of ICE.

4850-3770-4026.1

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-5 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 4
12. It is my understanding that the only reason my clients were not removed in October 2017 was the order of this Court.
13. For this reason, I believe that if this court dissolves its stay, even if all Petitioners/Plaintiffs will have filed Motions to Reopen, they will remain at risk of immediate removal prior to any action of the Board. This could be devastating, and could subject Petitioners/Plaintiffs, including my clients, to removal to Indonesia where the country conditions are extremely hostile to Christians and could put them in danger of persecution, torture, or death.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 3rd day of January, 2018.
/s/ Saher Macarius Saher Macarius, Esq.

4850-3770-4026.1

3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-6 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-6 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v.
CHRIS M. CRONEN, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

Civil Action No.17-cv-11842-PBS

AFFIDAVIT OF ENRIQUE F. MESA, JR., ESQ. I, Enrique F. Mesa, Jr., under oath, depose and say as follows: 1 I am an adult resident of New Hampshire and make this affidavit based upon my own knowledge. This Affidavit is made in support of Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the abovereferenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this Affidavit, and would be competent to testify thereto. 2. I am an experienced immigration law practitioner and name partner at Mesa Law LLC in Manchester, New Hampshire. I have served as an immigration attorney for decades. I have handled proceedings before the Boston Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. District Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, including dozens of motions to reopen and motions to stay pending adjudication over the course my career. 3. I am retained counsel to Petitioners/Plaintiffs to Heru Kurniawan and Deetje Patty. 4. Kurniawan and Patty were participants in Operation Indonesian Surrender. Unlike many other program participants, at the time that the program was discontinued in August

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-6 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 4
2017, Kurniawan and Patty had already been preparing applications for immigration relief and had obtained their administrative file. 5. As a result, at around the time that the Complaint was filed in this action, Kurniawan and Patty filed their motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals; they did so because they had a U.S. citizen child who had reached age 21 and was able to petition for legal permanent resident status on their behalf; to my knowledge, no other remaining Petitioners/Plaintiffs have U.S. citizen children old enough to support their adjustment application. 6. ICE refused to extend the Order of Supervision (OSUP) and continued to demand that Kurniawan and Patty purchase plane tickets, essentially demanding that they self-deport as a condition of the OSUP. 7. As a result, in September 2017, I filed a motion to reopen along with a motion to stay removal pending adjudication before the Board of Immigration Appeals.On December 20, 2017, the Board denied the motion to reopen, but did not issue any ruling on the concurrently-filed stay motion. 8. Based on my experience and understanding, this is because the Board will not consider motions to stay if the individual is not in physical custody pursuant to BIA Practice Manual at § 6(d)(i). 9. It is my understanding that the only reason my clients were not removed in October 2017 was the order of this Court. 10. Now, in January 2018, since the Board issued a denial of the motion to reopen, but ignored the motion to stay, Kurniawan and Patty remain subject to the conditions of their OSUPs.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-6 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 4
11. For this reason, I believe that if this court dissolves its stay, even if all Petitioners/Plaintiffs will have filed Motions to Reopen, they will remain at risk of immediate removal prior to any action of the Board. This could be devastating, and could subject Petitioners/Plaintiffs, including my clients, to removal to Indonesia where the country conditions are extremely hostile to Christians and could put them in danger of persecution, torture, or death.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 03 day of January, 2018.

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT G

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 72-7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________________

)

LIA DEVITRI, et al.,

)

)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action

)

No. 17-11842-PBS

CHRIS CRONEN, et al.,

)

)

Respondents/Defendants. )

___________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

February 1, 2018

Saris, C.J.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners1 are fifty2 Indonesian Christians subject to

final Orders of Removal. Residing with Government permission in

New Hampshire under a humanitarian program called “Operation

Indonesian Surrender,” they have complied with the conditions of

their Orders of Supervision, some for more than a decade. Last

summer, the Government informed them that the program was being

terminated, and they were ordered to return to Indonesia within

1

Petitioners filed this as a putative class action. The

Court has not certified a class.

2

Bobby Candra was withdrawn from this action on January 19,

2018. See Docket No. 83.

1

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 24

sixty days. Petitioners now seek to file3 motions to reopen their immigration proceedings based on “changed country conditions,” on the ground that they are likely to face persecution or torture in Indonesia because of their Christian faith. Challenging their lack of meaningful access to the motion to reopen procedure as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),4 Petitioners assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. They contend they will be removed to Indonesia before they have sufficient time to file a motion to reopen and before the motion to reopen is ruled on by the BIA and First Circuit. Accordingly, they seek a preliminary injunction staying their removal.
The Government argues that Petitioners seek to circumvent Congress’s immigration framework. They re-assert that this Court

3

At the time of this Memorandum and Order, the Court is

aware of two Petitioners who have motions to reopen based on

changed country conditions pending before the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

4

Two counts survive from Petitioners’ Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) (Docket No. 44): Count I under the INA, 8

U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and Count II under the Due Process Clause

of the Fifth Amendment. The Court dismissed without prejudice

Count III, which related to the unlawful detention of Petitioner

Terry Rombot, in its order on jurisdiction because it was

addressed in a separate action. See Docket No. 65 at 22; see

also Rombot v. Souza, 1:17-cv-11577-PBS, Docket No. 49; Docket

No. 52.

2

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 24
lacks jurisdiction, that Petitioners do not show that they are likely to be removed before the administrative courts can adjudicate their motions to stay removal, and that they have not shown that they are each likely to face torture or persecution as a result of removal.
After a hearing, the Court ALLOWS the motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 3) staying removal to the extent provided below.
BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with its November 27, 2017 order on jurisdiction (Docket No. 65, Devitri v. Cronen, Civ. No. 17-11842-PBS, 2017 WL 5707528 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2017), and only briefly summarizes the relevant background information here. I. Factual Background A. The Humanitarian Program Petitioners are Christian Indonesian nationals who have lived in New Hampshire for many years (some for over a decade), but are subject to final Orders of Removal. In 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) instituted a humanitarian program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender” in New Hampshire. Petitioners and other Indonesian nationals with final Orders of Removal were encouraged to come “out of the shadows” and identify themselves to ICE during the program. In exchange,
3

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 4 of 24
they were granted temporary stays of removal and placed under Orders of Supervision (“OSUPs”). These OSUPs allowed them to seek employment and also prescribed conditions with which the recipients had to comply. Petitioners lived and worked under these OSUPs without incident until 2017 and generally complied with their conditions.
The Government never made any promises or agreements that the program participants could stay in the country indefinitely. However, nothing in the record suggests that Petitioners were notified that they would forfeit the right to assert changed country conditions if they did not file motions to reopen while they participated in Operation Indonesian Surrender. They reasonably relied on their OSUPs in not filing motions to reopen earlier and had no reason to suspect that the Government would abruptly change its mind about the humanitarian program.
On August 1, 2017, a group of Petitioners checked in with ICE pursuant to the conditions of their OSUPs. They were informed that they would be subject to a “thirty-thirty” deportation schedule: they would have to depart for Indonesia no later than thirty days after their upcoming thirty-day check-in appointment (i.e., sixty days from August 1, 2017).
B. Fears of Persecution Petitioners’ expert, Jeffrey Winters, Ph.D., states that Indonesian society has recently faced a “rising tide of
4

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 5 of 24
extremist Islam.” Winters Aff. (Docket No. 49-6) ¶ 8. Petitioners have presented evidence that they may face “intimidation, physical harm, and threats to their personal safety and well-being,” based on their Christian religion, if they returned to Indonesia. Winters Aff. (Docket No. 49-6) ¶ 2. According to Dr. Winters, since 2012, the level of violence and intolerance directed at religious minorities has increased at a “shocking rate,” and Christian Indonesians face an “extremely high probability of persecution.” Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) ¶ 2.
Dr. Winters’s supplemental affidavit further states that law enforcement in Indonesia is unlikely to provide meaningful protection to religious minorities -- and Evangelical Christians, like Petitioners, in particular -- in the face of violence and intolerance. See Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 881) ¶¶ 14, 33. He writes that “the Indonesian government actively supports Islamic extremists who are anti-Christian” and “will punish those who are ‘vocal’ and ‘assertive’ Christians, such as Plaintiffs.” Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) ¶ 6. Dr. Winters also cites a 2013 United States government report, which found that the Indonesian government “did not enforce laws that would protect vulnerable groups and religions” and “collaborated with hardline groups against members of sects they deemed to be ‘deviant.’” Winters Aff. (Docket No. 49-6) ¶ 108.
5

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 6 of 24
His supplemental affidavit also includes articles covering this case in the media in Indonesia. See Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) Ex. A. Although names of some of the Petitioners are mentioned in media coverage, Petitioners have presented no affidavits about their individual situations. II. BIA Procedures
Congress created a statutory right for each alien to file a motion to reopen immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); Perez Santana v. Holder, 731 F.3d 50, 51 (1st Cir. 2013). Based on the alleged changed conditions in Indonesia, Petitioners seek to file motions to reopen with the BIA.5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (“There is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen . . . based on changed country conditions . . . .”).
Petitioners may request from the BIA a stay of their removal pending a ruling on the motion to reopen. A stay is discretionary. See Gearin Decl. (Docket No. 36-2) ¶ 7. A stay request can only be submitted to the BIA if the individual previously filed or contemporaneously files a motion to reopen. See BIA Practice Manual § 6.4(b). The BIA “categorizes stay requests into two categories: emergency and non-emergency.” Id.

5

Only two named Petitioners will be filing their motions to

reopen with the Immigration Court, according to Petitioners. See

Docket No. 72 at 4 n.4.

6

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 7 of 24
§ 6.4(d). But the BIA does not consider stay requests on an immediate “emergency” basis unless removal is imminent and the individual is in ICE’s physical custody. Gearin Decl. (Docket No. 36-2) ¶¶ 8-9; accord BIA Practice Manual § 6.4(d)(i). Petitioners are not in physical custody, so the BIA’s emergency stay procedures would not apply to them.
Instead, Petitioners would be subject to the “nonemergency” stay procedures. The BIA’s practice manual states that it “does not rule immediately on a ‘non-emergency’ stay request, but considers the request during the normal course of adjudication.” BIA Practice Manual § 6.4(d)(ii). In practice, the BIA often does not rule on non-emergency stay requests from non-detained individuals. See Chan Decl. (Docket No. 72-2) ¶ 12; Mesa Aff. (Docket No. 72-6) ¶¶ 7-8; Piereson Aff. (Docket No. 72-7) ¶ 11. When the BIA does rule on non-emergency stay requests, it typically does so at the same time that it decides the motion to reopen. See Greenstein Aff. (Docket No. 72-3) ¶ 19. Even if the BIA rules on the motion for a stay and denies it, there is no right to appeal the stay denial until the BIA also rules on the motion to reopen. See Gando-Coello v. I.N.S., 857 F.2d 25, 26 (1st Cir. 1988) (holding that BIA’s denial of
7

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 8 of 24
stay pending disposition of motion to reopen is not a final administrative order reviewable by Court of Appeals).6
In sum, absent a judicial stay, contrary to the Government’s assertions, I find that it is likely that Petitioners will be deported to Indonesia before their motions to stay and motions to reopen are considered by the BIA and the Court of Appeals.7
DISCUSSION I. Preliminary Injunction
A. Legal Standard In order to be granted a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show the Court “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

6

The First Circuit has held that there is a right to pursue

a post-removal motion to reopen in the BIA and Court of Appeals.

See Perez Santana, 731 F.3d at 51.

7

Two Petitioners will file with the Immigration Court, which

has different procedures. As discussed in the Court’s earlier

decision in this case, the Immigration Court will consider

motions for stays from non-detained persons. While the

Government hints that an Immigration Judge’s denial of a stay

request may not be appealed to the BIA until the motion to

reopen is adjudicated, see Dufresne Decl. (Docket No. 36-1) ¶

12, the parties have not fully briefed the issue of whether the

BIA may review an Immigration Court’s denial of a motion to

stay.

8

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 9 of 24
Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the merits: if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits In arguing that Petitioners are not likely to succeed on the merits, the Government primarily returns to its challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction, which the Court has already rejected. The Government’s central argument is that the motion to reopen process is an adequate administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief, and therefore the jurisdiction-stripping language in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)8 does not violate the Suspension

8

The relevant language from 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) reads:

“Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the [Secretary of Homeland Security] to . . . execute removal orders against any alien . . . .”

9

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 10 of 24
Clause of the United States Constitution.9 Congress may provide adequate substitutes for habeas corpus without offending the Suspension Clause. See I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314 n.38 (2001) (“Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions, provide an adequate substitute through the courts of appeals.”); Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977) (holding that “the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person’s detention does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus”). Generally speaking, circuits have rejected Suspension Clause challenges on the ground that a motion to reopen plus a petition for review in the court of appeals would be an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. See, e.g., Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting as-applied challenge);

9

The Suspension Clause provides: “The Privilege of the Writ

of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of

Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S.

Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.

The Government presses an argument that Petitioners do not bring a “traditional” habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as historically understood because they do not seek release from physical custody. However, the Supreme Court itself has pointed out that the writ was historically used in a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from requests for freedom from the restraints of apprenticeship to challenging the refusal to let an immigrant leave a ship and land on shore. See I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301-03, 305-06 (2001); see also Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 197 (1st Cir. 2003) (“The writ of habeas corpus has been employed by non-citizens for centuries in both the United States and Britain.”).
10

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 11 of 24
Mohamed v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir. 2007) (same); Alexandre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 1204, 1206 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (rejecting facial challenge).
Acknowledging this line of cases, Petitioners vigorously contend that the motion to reopen and review procedure violates the Suspension Clause as applied to their cases because it is not an adequate substitute to habeas relief in changed-countrycondition cases where a petitioner raises a non-frivolous claim that he will be persecuted after removal but before the motion to reopen can be ruled on by the BIA and Court of Appeals. The Court previously found that the Immigration Court’s procedures for adjudicating motions to reopen and motions to stay “typically are an adequate and effective administrative alternative to habeas corpus relief consistent with the Suspension Clause.” Docket No. 65 at 19. However, the Court did not address the adequacy of the opportunity for judicial review. The Court also reserved the question of whether the BIA’s procedures are an adequate and effective substitute for habeas relief for these Petitioners. See Docket No. 65 at 19.
On the fuller record now before the Court, I find that the BIA’s processes for adjudicating motions to reopen and motions to stay are not adequate administrative alternatives to habeas for these Petitioners. The Government has conceded that Petitioners -- who are not in custody -- would not be subject to
11

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 12 of 24
the BIA’s emergency stay procedures. Gearin Decl. (Docket No. 36-2) ¶¶ 8-9; accord BIA Practice Manual § 6.4(d)(i). Petitioners have provided persuasive evidence demonstrating that it is likely that the BIA will not rule on their non-emergency motions to stay before they are deported. See Chan Decl. (Docket No. 72-2) ¶ 12; Mesa Aff. (Docket No. 72-6) ¶¶ 7-8; Piereson Aff. (Docket No. 72-7) ¶ 11; Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 21; cf. Greenstein Aff. (Docket No. 72-3) ¶ 19 (explaining that, when BIA does rule on a non-emergency stay motion, it does so “at the same time that it adjudicates the motion to reopen, essentially rendering the stay request moot”). Thus, under this Kafkaesque10 procedure, they will be removed back to the very country where they fear persecution and torture while awaiting a decision on whether they should be subject to removal because of their fears of persecution and torture. Petitioners have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the BIA’s procedures will not be adequate to protect their due process rights and their rights under asylum law, the CAT, and the INA. Thus, as applied to the circumstances of this case, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) is a violation of the Suspension Clause, and this Court has habeas and federal-question jurisdiction over Petitioners’ statutory and Constitutional claims.
10 See Franz Kafka, The Trial (1925) (telling story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority).
12

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 13 of 24
Citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (b)(3)(B), the Government also argues that the federal courts of appeals “have ample authority to halt the execution of a removal order.” Docket No. 68 at 7. But that is not true, because the circuit courts only have jurisdiction over a denial of a motion to reopen, see Gando-Coello, 857 F.2d at 26 (holding that court of appeals’ jurisdiction does not attach until there is a final administrative order), which can happen after removal, see Diaz v. Sessions, No. 17-3669, 2018 WL 443879, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2018) (noting that BIA denied petitioner’s motion to reopen approximately one month after she was removed to Mexico). As the Government acknowledges, meaningful judicial review is critical to a finding that a statutory scheme provides an adequate substitute for habeas relief. See St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 314 n.38.
Plaintiffs allege that removing Petitioners without giving them access to the motion to reopen process -- “their core procedural entitlement” -- “violates [the] due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.” SAC ¶ 108. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause mandates that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. As a starting point, “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
13

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 14 of 24
678, 693 (2001). “[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (citing The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 100-01 (1903)). The Due Process Clause also protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation, “though the nature of that protection may vary depending upon status and circumstance.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693-94.
A cognizable liberty or property interest is a prerequisite to a colorable due process claim. Jupiter v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 487, 492 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)). In 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), Congress codified the right to file one motion to reopen and created a statutory form of relief available to an alien. Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2008). Generally, a non-citizen may not base a due process claim on a denial of a motion to reopen because the discretionary relief of reopening immigration proceedings is not an entitlement or right. See Naeem v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 33, 3839 (1st Cir. 2006) (rejecting due process claim for denial of motion to reopen based on wife’s naturalization).
Here, there is a statutory right to move to reopen and an entitlement to not be deported to a country where persecution would occur. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (mandating that ICE “may not remove an alien to a country if . . . the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the
14

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 15 of 24
alien’s . . . religion”).11 Thus, Petitioners do have a
significant interest in the right to file a motion to reopen and
the opportunity to have their fears of persecution and torture
adjudicated before removal.
For some essential entitlements, only a pre-deprivation
opportunity to be heard will provide sufficient procedural due
process. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970); cf. 8
U.S.C. § 1229a (setting out procedures for pre-removal
immigration proceedings). The legal question here is whether the
right to post-removal consideration of a motion to reopen and
motion to stay meets due process standards in a change of
country conditions case where there is a colorable claim of
persecution. In my view, such a procedure does not meet the
requirements of due process because of the significance of the
liberty interests at stake. See Hamama v. Adducci, 261 F. Supp.
11 This principle, known as “non-refoulement,” originated in the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Convention”), which was enacted in 1951 to protect European refugees after World War II. See UNHCR, The UN Refugee Agency, The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol 1 (2011). Article 33.1 of the Convention imposed a mandatory non-refoulement duty on the signatory states. See I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 429 (1987). In 1968, the United States agreed to abide by many of the substantive provisions of the Convention. Id. Then, in 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act, which codified the non-refoulement mandate of Article 33.1 and removed any remaining executive discretion from the process. Id. Non-citizens may assert claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and the CAT in motions to reopen based on changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3), 1003.23(b)(4).
15

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 16 of 24
3d 820, 837-38 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (holding that, in a similar case, “impeded access” to the motion to reopen procedure before removal supported likely success on due process claim). Based on the record, I find that Petitioners have proven a likelihood of success on their due process claim that they will suffer prejudice through a denial of a meaningful opportunity to have a motion to reopen and motion to stay ruled on by the BIA and Court of Appeals prior to removal to a country where they have a credible fear of persecution. See, e.g., Chan Decl. (Docket No. 72-2) ¶ 12; Mesa Aff. (Docket No. 72-6) ¶¶ 7-8; Piereson Aff. (Docket No. 72-7) ¶ 11.
C. Irreparable Harm A preliminary injunction must only issue when the moving party demonstrates that it would likely suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits could be rendered. See Voice of the Arab World, Inc., 645 F.3d at 32 (“[T]he basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies.” (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barceló, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982))). A showing of possible irreparable injury is insufficient. See Matos ex rel. Matos v. Clinton Sch. Dist., 367 F.3d 68, 73 (1st Cir. 2004) (“A threat that is either unlikely to materialize or purely theoretical will not do.”). Instead, the moving party must show a “cognizable threat” of irreparable
16

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 17 of 24
harm absent a preliminary injunction. Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1996).
The burden of removal alone cannot constitute the requisite irreparable injury for a non-citizen. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009) (analyzing the appropriate standard for a stay of removal). The Supreme Court reasoned: “Aliens who are removed may continue to pursue their petitions for review, and those who prevail can be afforded effective relief by facilitation of their return, along with restoration of the immigration status they had upon removal.” Id. at 435. It is not enough to demonstrate some possibility of irreparable harm. Id. at 434-35.
Petitioners characterize their irreparable harm as “a significant risk of persecution and torture if they are removed to Indonesia.” Docket No. 4 at 12. The Government argues that Petitioners’ concerns about possible persecution or torture in Indonesia are nothing but “conjecture, surmise, or . . . unsubstantiated fears” that do not amount to irreparable harm. Docket No. 68 at 18 (quoting Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004)). Both sides agree that the Court should not hold a hearing on the actual conditions for Evangelical Christians in Indonesia today to resolve this fact issue. So the question is whether the
17

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 18 of 24
Petitioners have put forth sufficient credible evidence to
demonstrate irreparable harm. The Government seems to suggest that Petitioners cannot
establish irreparable harm because they are entitled to file and litigate motions to reopen after their removal to Indonesia. See
Docket No. 68 at 14 (quoting Perez Santana, 731 F.3d at 61). But the Government’s reliance on Perez Santana is misplaced because
the petitioner in that case did not file his motion to reopen
under a changed country conditions theory; the only basis for his motion was the vacatur of a criminal conviction. See 731
F.3d at 52. Thus, he did not face a threat of persecution upon removal.
Petitioners have presented unrebutted evidence to show that, if they were deported to Indonesia, they would face the
threat of persecution or torture. Indeed, Dr. Winters states: While I am not able to speak to legal consequences, I wish to express in the strongest terms that if these Plaintiffs, whose stories are now well-known in Indonesia, are returned, they are highly likely to face retribution by the Indonesian authorities for having “spoken out as Christians,” and will certainly never be permitted to leave Indonesia for the U.S. again. The Indonesian government is extremely sensitive about negative portrayals of the country abroad, and officials take an especially negative view of Indonesians who are the source of the criticism.
Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) ¶ 5. Moreover, even if the BIA granted Petitioners’ motions to reopen after their removal,
they may not be able to return to the United States. See Winters
18

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 19 of 24
Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) ¶ 13 (stating that it is “unrealistic to believe that these Plaintiffs will be permitted to travel to the U.S. to participate in their reopened immigration proceedings” if their post-removal motions to reopen are successful); Kanstroom Aff. (Docket No. 88-2) ¶ 11 (noting that “it is far from clear that the U.S. government would ever actually return them”); Hoppock Aff. (Docket No. 88-3) ¶ 5 (discussing why “it is highly unlikely that Plaintiffs will be returned” if successful on a motion to reopen). Petitioners have also submitted evidence that this case has been covered by the Indonesian press, which has expressly stated the names of some of the Petitioners, see Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) Exs. A, B, and that Evangelical Christians will be targeted by extremist groups without government protection, see Winters Supp. Aff. (Docket No. 88-1) ¶ 14.
It is true that there is no individualized evidence concerning the specific threats each Petitioner faces in Indonesia. The Court is unfamiliar with the quantum of evidence the BIA demands to meet that individualized burden, particularly for persons who left their native country over a decade ago. Still, based on the record, including the supplemental filings, the Court finds that Petitioners have presented a sufficient basis for fearing persecution to demonstrate a motion to reopen is non-frivolous. The Court further finds that Petitioners have
19

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 20 of 24
demonstrated a successful motion to reopen will not necessarily result in a restoration of immigration status for many.
D. Balance of Equities and Public Interest Finally, the Court must weigh the irreparable harm to Petitioners against the harm to the Government and must determine whether a preliminary injunction would be in the public interest. See Voice of the Arab World, Inc., 645 F.3d at 32. These two inquiries merge in a case like this one, where the Government is the party opposing the preliminary injunction. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 435 (explaining that two factors merge when court of appeals decides whether a stay of removal pending adjudication is necessary). The Government argues that it will be irreparably injured if it is enjoined from removing these Petitioners and from effectuating the immigration statutes passed by Congress. While it is true that “[t]here is always a public interest in prompt execution of removal orders,” the Supreme Court has simultaneously recognized that “there is a public interest in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 436. The public’s interest in providing due process for non-citizens to ensure that they are not removed to a country where they will be persecuted is an extremely weighty one. Cf. Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 242 (2010) (“The motion
20

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 21 of 24
to reopen is an ‘important safeguard’ intended ‘to ensure a proper and lawful disposition’ of immigration proceedings.” (quoting Dada, 554 U.S. at 18 (2008))).
A brief delay in unlawful deportation of residents who have lived here with Government permission for over a decade outweighs the public interest in prompt execution of removal orders, where Petitioners have been law-abiding and pose no threat to public safety.
The Government advises that “[t]he Court should allow the robust administrative process to operate as Congress intended.” Docket No. 68 at 20. The Court agrees with the Government’s position on this point. In entering a preliminary injunction to stay Petitioners’ removal from the United States, the Court is doing no more than allowing them to use the administrative and judicial procedures that Congress designed and the Constitution requires. This injunctive relief is consistent with Congressional intent. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 97980 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that habeas relief in petitioner’s case only would result in sufficient time to file petition for review in court of appeals, “which is consistent with Congressional intent underlying the REAL ID Act”). II. A-files
Petitioners seek their full alien files (“A-files”) before filing their motions to reopen. The Government contends that
21

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 22 of 24
Petitioners do not need the A-files and that the Records of Proceedings before the Immigration Court will suffice.12
Petitioners maintain that the A-files are necessary for preparing the motions to reopen based on changed country conditions to demonstrate what has “changed” for each Petitioner individually since the original decision. See, e.g., Anker Decl. (Docket No. 72-1) ¶¶ 10-11 (explaining that “the A-File provides the necessary baseline for comparison” for a changed country conditions motion); Greenstein Aff. (Docket no. 72-3) ¶ 16 (noting that the Records of Proceedings available for review in the Immigration Court are not a sufficient substitute for the full A-file); Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 10 (describing differences between A-file and Record of Proceedings). These affidavits are persuasive.
Immigration attorneys also have stated that counsel for Petitioners will need six weeks to three months after receiving the A-files to submit the motions to reopen. See Anker Decl. (Docket No. 72-1) ¶ 13; Realmuto Aff. (Docket No. 49-5) ¶ 12. The Court finds that this time is reasonably necessary under the
12 The Government argues that the relevant information for a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions is contained in the Records of Proceedings. However, counsel of record for Petitioners were not given full access to the Records of Proceedings. They were allowed to read the documents in the Immigration Court, but not photocopy them. Piereson Aff. (Docket No. 72-7) ¶ 5. The Government is seeking to remedy this unfortunate situation. See Docket No. 87 at 2-3.
22

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 23 of 24
Due Process Clause, given the length of time Petitioners have been in the country and the need to investigate their individual situations if returned to Indonesia. See Hamama, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 841 (granting petitioners ninety days from receipt of A-files to submit motions to reopen in similar case). Accordingly, the stay of removal will expire for a Petitioner if the Petitioner does not file motions to reopen and to stay within ninety days after receiving the A-file.13 III. Terms of the Injunction
The stay14 shall remain in effect until seven business days after the BIA rules on a timely motion to reopen. The stay will continue for this additional seven-business-day period after the BIA rules on an individual’s motion to reopen so there will be a meaningful opportunity to seek a stay in the First Circuit and obtain judicial review.
13 The Court ordered production of the A-files. See Docket No. 58. In addition, most Petitioners have submitted FOIA requests for their files. See Docket No. 79. So far, the Government has served eleven A-files on December 15, 2017, six A-files on January 5, 2018, and eleven A-files on January 12, 2018. Laughlin Decl. (Docket No. 80-1) ¶ 4. Production of all remaining A-files will be completed no later than February 28, 2018. Laughlin Decl. (Docket No. 80-1) ¶ 15. 14 The Court is using the words “stay” and “injunction” interchangeably.
23

Case 1:17-cv-11842-PBS Document 90 Filed 02/01/18 Page 24 of 24

ORDER The Government is hereby stayed from removing any named Petitioner from the United States until one of the following conditions occurs: (1) If any named Petitioner fails to file a motion to
reopen and motion to stay with the BIA or Immigration Court within ninety days after receiving his or her Afile, the preliminary injunction will terminate as to that particular Petitioner. If a named Petitioner fails to file a timely appeal of the Immigration Court’s denial of a motion to reopen to the BIA, the stay shall terminate as to that particular Petitioner. (2) If any named Petitioner fails to file a motion for relief with the First Circuit within seven business days of the BIA denying his or her motion to reopen, the preliminary injunction will terminate as to that particular Petitioner. (3) If an appeal of a denial of a motion to reopen is filed in the First Circuit within seven business days, the stay will terminate as to that particular Petitioner unless the First Circuit orders otherwise.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS

____

Patti B. Saris

Chief United States District Judge

24

 
 Case: 18-1C2a8s1e 1:1D7o-cuv-m1e1n8t4:25-9PBSPaDgoec: u1menDt 1a1te1FiFleidle:d0022/0/066/2/10919 PagEen1tryofID2: 6230756

United States Court of Appeals

No. 18-1281

For the First Circuit
_____________________

LIA DEVITRI; EVA GRASJE; SYANE KALOH; JOHN LONDA; MELDY LUMANGKUN; MARTIN LUMINGKEWAS; MEIVE LUMINGKEWAS; TERRY ROMBOT; AGUS
SETIAWAN; FREDDY SOMBAH; POPPY SOMBAH; HERU KURNIAWAN; DEETJE PATTY; ROY ANTOUW; DEBBY WALANDOW; ARNOLD BUDIHARDJO; VIRAKE
BUDIHARDJO; MICHAEL EMAN; HESTI RIMPER; GREACE MAMBO; SONNY MAMBO; EDDY PANJAITAN; CHRISTIAN PENTURY; LINARIA SINAGA; ELVIS
SEPANG; ESTER ARINA; YAYHA BANTURINO; JODY SOEBAGYO; PINTA CHRISMILIAN; NICO FNU; WILLY MANDAGI; ADELE TUMBEL; JAMES TOMBENG;
JANE PAJOW; GOLTODO PARAPAT; MARGARIET SITOMPUL; SERO RARUNG; STEPHEN RARUNG; LAURA RONDONUWU; WENDA CHAPMAN; JACKLYN LELE;
SAMUEL WONDAL; MARKUS SUBRTO; TAMARA TASYA; FELICIA LUKMAN; KAJONO GUNARDI; LENY SUTANTO; FRANKY MASSIE; SANDRA SAHERTIAN;
HEFRI SENDUK,

Petitioners, Appellees,

BOBBY CANDRA,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRIS M. CRONEN, Boston Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TIMOTHY STEVENS, Manchester Sub-Office
Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Respondents, Appellants. __________________

Before

Lynch, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.
__________________

JUDGMENT

Entered: February 6, 2019

Case: 18-1C2a8s1e 1:1D7o-cuv-m1e1n8t4:25-9PBSPaDgoec: u2menDt 1a1te1FiFleidle:d0022/0/066/2/10919 PagEen2tryofID2: 6230756
In this appeal from the grant of preliminary injunctive relief, the parties have agreed that the terms of the relevant injunction have been fulfilled and that this appeal should now be dismissed as moot. The government also has moved to vacate the district court's preliminary injunction ruling, a request the petitioners oppose. After careful review of the record and the filings of the parties, we grant the motion to dismiss on mootness grounds and deny the motion to vacate. See McLane v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 3 F.3d 522, 524 n.6 (1st Cir. 1993) ("In the case of interlocutory appeals . . . the usual practice is just to dismiss the appeal as moot and not vacate the order appealed from.") (internal quotations omitted).
The appeal is dismissed.
By the Court:
Maria R. Hamilton, Clerk
cc: Lee Gelernt W. Daniel Deane Gilles R. Bissonnette Judy Rabinovitz Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero Adriana Lafaille Matthew R Segal Nathan P. Warecki Sydney Pritchett Anand Balakrishnan SangYeob Kim Cynthia A. Young Michael P. Sady Rayford A. Farquhar William C. Silvis Michael A. Celone John Hawkinson