1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

JULIA HARUMI MASS, SBN 189649

MICHAEL T. RISHER, SBN 191627 

WILLIAM S. FREEMAN, SBN 82002 

NOVELLA Y. COLEMAN, SBN 281632 

CHRISTINE P. SUN, SBN 218701 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, INC. 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 

Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 

Email: jmass@aclunc.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb and John 

Doe, on behalf of themselves and others 

similarly situated; ACLU of Northern 

California; Jewish Family & Community 

Services East Bay 

R. ADAM LAURIDSEN, SBN 243780

EDUARDO E. SANTACANA, SBN 281668 

GRACE YANG, SBN 286635 

IAN KANIG, SBN 295623 

CHESSIE THACHER, SBN 296767 

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb and John 

Doe, on behalf of themselves and others 

similarly situated; ACLU of Northern 

California; Jewish Family & Community 

Services East Bay 

[SEE NEXT PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COUNSEL] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Hadil Al-Mowafak, Wasim Ghaleb and 

John Doe, on behalf of themselves and 

others similarly situated; ACLU of 

Northern California; Jewish Family & 

Community Services East Bay, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Donald Trump, President of the United 

States; U.S. Department of State; U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security; U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection; Rex W. 

Tillerson, Secretary of State; John Kelly, 

Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security; Kevin McAleenan, Acting 

Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Patrol; Carrie Azurin, Field Director, San 

Francisco Field Office of U.S. Customs 

and Border Patrol, 

Civil Case No. ______________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF 

 Defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

AHILAN T. ARULANANTHAM, SBN 237841 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

1313 West 8th Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Telephone: (213) 977-5211 

Facsimile: (213) 977-5297 

Email: aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org 

BARDIS VAKILI, SBN 247783 

DAVID LOY, SBN 229235 

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO 

AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES 

P.O. Box 87131 

San Diego, CA 92138-7131 

Telephone: (619) 232-2121 

Facsimile: (619) 232-0036 

Email: bvakili@aclusandiego.org 

ANDRE SEGURA, SBN 247681 

OMAR C. JADWAT* 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS 

PROJECT 

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Telephone: (212) 549-2618 

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 

Email: asegura@aclu.org 

CECILLIA D. WANG, SBN 187782 

JENNIFER CHANG NEWELL, SBN 233033 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS 

PROJECT 

39 Drumm Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 343-0770 

Facsimile: (212) 395-0950 

Email: cwang@aclu.org 

*Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

-1- 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

INTRODUCTION

1. On December 7, 2015, then-candidate Donald J. Trump issued a statement “calling 

for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Defendant Trump 

remained consistent on this position throughout his campaign for the presidency. 

2. Following his election as President, Defendant Trump implemented his plan to ban 

individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs: One week after he took office, on January 27, 

2017, Defendant Trump issued an Executive Order (the “Executive Order”) completely 

prohibiting for at least 90 days the entry or re-entry of all persons who are nationals of seven 

predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (the 

“Designated Countries”)—regardless of whether such persons hold valid visas or are lawful 

permanent residents of the United States. As one of Defendant Trump’s senior advisors 

confirmed the next day, the Executive Order is an attempt to institute the promised “Muslim ban.”

3. Also on January 27, 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services at the 

Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State, relying on the authority of the Executive 

Order, summarily and provisionally revoked all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals 

of the seven predominantly Muslim Countries, subject to exceptions not relevant here. This 

revocation (“the Provisional Revocation Letter”) threatens countless nationals of the Designated 

Countries who are currently in the United States or who reside in the United States but were 

traveling abroad when the letter was issued.

4. The First Amendment does not allow the government to circumvent its protections 

for religious freedom so easily. As the Supreme Court explained in striking down a law that targeted 

members of an unpopular religion, “[o]fficial action that targets religio[n] ... cannot be shielded by 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-2-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause protects 

against governmental hostility which is masked, as well as overt.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu 

Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993). The Executive Order and the Provisional 

Revocation Letter violate the First Amendment because they are thinly veiled attempts to 

discriminate against Muslims by barring them from entry to the United States. 

5. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) ensures that the United States does not 

adopt certain discriminatory immigration policies. The INA prohibits preference or discrimination 

on the basis of “a person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C. 

§1152(a)(1)(A). The Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter contradict this statute 

and instead would revoke visas and deny entry based on nothing but “nationality, place of birth or 

place of residence.” 

6. Plaintiffs include nationals of the Designated Countries who are or have been 

lawfully present in California and who, but for the Executive Order and/or the Provisional 

Revocation Letter, have the lawful right to travel to and from the United States. Plaintiffs also 

include organizations that wish to hear from and associate with people barred from entering the 

nation under the orders. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other persons 

similarly situated to challenge various provisions of the Executive Order and the Provisional 

Revocation Letter that violate the First Amendment, the equal-protection and due process rights 

granted under the Fifth Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000bb-1 et seq., the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et. seq, and the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

//// 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-3-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. This Court has jurisdiction under 5 U. S. C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1361, and has further remedial authority pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2201 et seq. 

8. Venue properly lies within the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred 

in the District. 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

9. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this case should be assigned to the San Francisco or 

Oakland Division of this Court because the action arises in San Francisco County. 

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Hadil Al-Mowafak is a Yemeni national who is currently in her freshman 

year at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. She possesses a valid F-1 student visa and 

has continuously resided in the United States since September 17, 2016. As described below, 

Plaintiff Al-Mowafak plans to travel to Yemen in the summer of 2017 to visit her husband, who 

lives in Yemen. Because her husband does not have a United States visa, the only way that 

Plaintiff Al-Mowafak can see her husband is if she travels to Yemen to visit him. 

11. Plaintiff Wasim Ghaleb is a Yemeni national who is currently studying business 

administration at Grossmont College in San Diego, California. Plaintiff Ghaleb possesses a valid 

F-1 student visa and continuously resided in California from March 4, 2016 to January 15, 2017. 

As described below, Plaintiff Ghaleb travelled to Saudi Arabia on January 15 to visit his family, 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-4-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

fully intending to return to California two weeks later for the spring semester. Instead, he is now 

stuck outside the country because of the Executive Order. 

12. Plaintiff John Doe is an Iranian national who is currently a Ph.D. candidate at 

University of California, Berkeley. He possesses a valid F-1 student visa and has continuously 

resided in the United States since September 2012. As described below, Plaintiff Doe received 

and accepted a job offer at a top Fortune 50 Company in Silicon Valley. He fears that his postgraduate work authorization will be affected by the Executive Order and result in the loss of this 

job opportunity. He brings suit under a pseudonym because he fears retaliation. 

13. Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (“ACLU-NC”), 

founded in 1934 and based in San Francisco, California, is one of the largest ACLU affiliates, 

with more than 95,000 members, thousands of whom live in this District. Plaintiff ACLU-NC 

has long been dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of its members and of all 

Californians, including their rights to religious liberty and equal protection of the laws. Plaintiff 

ACLU-NC has members of many faiths— Muslim, Christian, Jewish and others— who are 

directly affected by the Executive Order and its implementation, including nationals of the 

Designated Countries who are now unable to travel. Other ACLU-NC members are U.S. citizens 

and permanent residents who wish to hear the speech of and associate with people of all faiths 

who are now unable to travel or return to the United States because of the Executive Order. In 

addition, Plaintiff ACLU-NC has members who pay federal taxes and are opposed to the use of 

their tax dollars to implement and enforce the unlawful actions that are the subject of this lawsuit. 

14. Plaintiff Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay (“JFCS-EB”), founded in 

1877 as the Daughters of Israel Relief Society, has a long history of working to resettle and 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-5-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

provide legal and other services to refugees and immigrants from many countries, including 

people from the Designated Countries, in the San Francisco Bay Area, and serves and supports 

Alameda and Contra Costa County residents of all ages, races, and religions. Plaintiff JFCS-EB 

supports those refugees and immigrants who are already present in the area, and stands ready to 

welcome and provide services to additional refugees and immigrants who are able to gain entry to 

the United States. Defendants’ actions impede JFCS-EB’s ability to carry out its mission, as 

JFCS-EB has been forced to divert its limited resources from critical ongoing work in support of 

refugees and immigrants in order to assist individuals negatively impacted by the Executive 

Order, such as responding to new and acute inquiries and requests for assistance. 

15. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his 

official capacity. 

16. Defendant U.S. Department of State is a cabinet department of the United States 

federal government that is responsible for issuing visas. 

17. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet 

department of the United States federal government with the primary mission of securing the 

United States. 

18. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an agency within DHS 

with the primary mission of detecting and preventing the unlawful entry of persons and goods 

into the United States. 

19. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the Secretary of State. He is sued in his official 

capacity. 

20. Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. He is sued in his official capacity. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-6-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

21. Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP. He is sued 

in his official capacity.

22. Defendant Carrie Azurin is the Field Director of the San Francisco Field Office of 

CBP. She is sued in her official capacity.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order 

23. On January 27, 2017, Defendant Trump signed the Executive Order entitled, 

“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” A copy of this 

Executive Order is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 

24. The Executive Order, citing the threat of terrorism committed by foreign nationals, 

purports to direct a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens may seek 

and obtain admission to the United States. Among other things, the Executive Order imposes a 

120-day moratorium on the resettlement of refugees; proclaims that “that the entry of nationals of 

Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and therefore “suspend[s]” 

indefinitely their entry to the country; and drastically limits to 50,000 the number of refugees 

from all countries who may be admitted in fiscal year 2017 on the ground that admission of a 

greater number of refugees would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 

25. Under Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, Defendant Trump proclaims “that the 

immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in 

section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the 

United States,” and that he is therefore “suspend[ing] entry into the United States, as immigrants 

and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order,” with narrow 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-7-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

exceptions not relevant here. This section of the Executive Order appears on its face to prevent 

all persons who are nationals of such countries from entering the United States, regardless of 

whether they are otherwise admissible. 

26. Under Section 1 of the Executive Order, entitled “Purpose,” the Executive Order 

states that at the time of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, “State Department policy 

prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 

foreign nationals” involved in those attacks. However, the Executive Order does not impose any 

restrictions on nationals of the countries of which the September 11 attackers were citizens. 

27. The same day the Executive Order issued, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa 

Services at the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State, relying on the Executive 

Order, issued a letter purporting to provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas 

of nationals of the Designated Countries, subject to exceptions not relevant here. The Provisional 

Revocation Letter was not publicized; to the contrary, it was withheld from the public until it was 

filed four days later under a “Notice of Supplemental Authority” in multiple cases challenging the 

Executive Order. The existence of the Provisional Revocation Letter broadens the chaos caused by 

the Executive Order. The federal government has apparently issued no public and legally binding 

guidance regarding the meaning or proper interpretation of the Provisional Revocation Letter. A 

copy of this letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. 

28. The Provisional Revocation Letter also appears to expand the scope of the Executive 

Order’s application: it applies on its face to persons who are present inside the United States as well 

as persons outside the United States, rather than being limited to persons seeking to enter the United 

States. Under section 221(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(i)(B), any alien whose 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-8-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

nonimmigrant visa has been revoked under 8 U. S. C. § 1201(i) (INA § 221(i), referenced in the 

Provisional Revocation Letter) is deportable. Immigration attorneys report that the Provisional 

Revocation Letter is now being applied to immigrants lawfully residing within the United States who 

have pending applications for asylum, lawful permanent residence and other immigration benefits.

The Text and History of the Executive Order Show Discriminatory Intent 

29. The Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter currently apply to 

nationals of seven countries, all of which are majority Muslim countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, 

Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Executive Order, by its express terms, suspends 

immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States based on nationality, place of birth or 

place of residence. The Provisional Revocation Letter similarly revokes “all valid nonimmigrant 

and immigrant visas of nationals” based on nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 

30. The Executive Order is an attempt by Defendant Trump to fulfill a campaign 

promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In a December 7, 2015 written 

statement, “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” then-candidate 

Trump said that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the 

United States.” This statement is still displayed on the official Trump-Pence website.1

 

31. That same day, Defendant Trump sent a tweet that stated “DONALD J. TRUMP 

STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION,” linking to the statement.2

 He 

also read a slightly modified version of the statement himself in public, declaring that “Donald J. 

 

1 https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration [last 

accessed on February 1, 2017]. 

2 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/673993417429524480 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-9-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until 

our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice.”3

 

32. On December 13, 2015, during an interview on CNN, Defendant Trump 

reaffirmed his intent to institute a ban on Muslims entering the country. When asked about his 

“call ... for, ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.’” he nodded his head 

and defended his position. Later, when he was asked whether he thought the ban would be was 

constitutional, he replied, “first of all, they’re not citizens.”4

 

33. Defendant Trump repeatedly referred to a ban on Muslim immigration on the 

campaign trail. For example, in a speech on June 13, 2016, Defendant Trump stated, “I called for 

a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger. But now many ... are saying 

that I was right to do so.”5

 

34. In July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press, Defendant Trump was asked directly 

if a plan similar to the now-enacted Executive Order was a “rollback” from “[t]he Muslim Ban.” 

Defendant Trump rejected the suggestion: “I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. 

In fact, you could say it is an expansion.”6

 

35. After the election, on December 22, 2016, a reporter asked Defendant Trump 

whether his “plans to create a Muslim register or ban Muslim immigration to the United States” 

 

3 http://wpo.st/O0uY2 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 4

 A video of this interview is available on CNN’s Youtube Channel at 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtcdn0zAqw; the referenced comments occur during the first 15 seconds of the 

interview and at 8:45 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 

5 http://www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11925122/trump-orlando-foreign-policy-transcript [last accessed on February 1, 

2017]. 

6 http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-10-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

had changed. Defendant Trump responded “you’ve known my plans all along” and that he was 

“100% correct” in his position.7

 

36. In the days after the Executive Order, Defendant Trump referred to the Executive 

Order as a “ban.” On January 30, Defendant Trump tweeted: “If the ban were announced with a 

one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week.”8

 On February 1, 

Defendant Trump expressed his indifference to whether the Executive Order is characterized as a 

ban on Muslims: “Everyone is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want....”9

37. Senior advisors to Defendant Trump have engaged in anti-Muslim rhetoric that 

provide additional support for the notion that the Executive Order was prompted by animus 

toward Islam and Muslims. 

38. In the summer of 2014, Stephen Bannon, chief strategist and senior counselor to 

Defendant Trump and a reported principal architect of the Executive Order, advocated for 

separation from those of the Muslim faith, telling a meeting of the Human Dignity Institute: “If 

you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe 

that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out 

of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places... It bequeathed to us the great 

institution that is the church of the West.” Bannon continued: “[T]hey were able to stave this off, 

and they were able to defeat it, and they were able to bequeath to us a church and a civilization 

that really is the flower of mankind, so I think it’s incumbent on all of us to do what I call a gut 

check, to really think about what our role is in this battle that’s before us.”10 

 

7 http://time.com/4611229/donald-trump-berlin-attack/ [last accessed February 1, 2017]. 8 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 9 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 10 https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world [last accessed February 1, 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 12 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-11-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

39. In an interview on January 28, 2017, one of Defendant Trump’s senior advisors, 

Rudolph Giuliani, left no doubt that the ban on entry from nationals of the Designated Countries 

was intended to carry out a ban on Muslims, and that the Executive Order was crafted to create a 

pretextual cover for a Muslim ban. Mr. Giuliani stated: “I’ll tell you the whole history of it. So, 

when he [Defendant Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, 

‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”11 

40. On January 29, an anonymous “senior administration official” briefed a reporter from 

Breitbart.com on the intended purpose of the Executive Order: “The reality, though, is that the 

situation [of large Islamic populations] that exists today in parts of France, in parts of Germany, in 

Belgium, etcetera, is not a situation we want replicated inside the United States.”12

41. Defendant Trump and his agents have also made it clear that they intend to favor 

non-Muslims nationals of the Designated Countries over Muslim nationals of those countries. In 

an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on January 27, 2017, Defendant Trump 

asserted that the United States had been discriminating against Christian refugees from Syria in 

favor of Muslims, claiming that “If you were a Muslim, you could come in. But if you were 

Christian, it was almost impossible.” He continued, “they were chopping off the heads of 

everybody but more so the Christians. I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help 

them.”13

42. Consistent with Defendant Trump’s expressed intent to favor Christians, Section 

5(e) of the Executive Order authorizes the Secretaries of the Department of State and the 

 

2017]. 

11 http://wpo.st/xzuY2 [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 12 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/30/trump-changes-immigration-favor-american-values/

(parenthetical in original) [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 13 http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/01/27/trump-will-give-persecuted-christians-priority-refugeestatus/ [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-12-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

Department of Homeland Security to admit individuals who are “member[s] of a religious 

minority” in their countries of nationality who are “facing religious persecution.” This provision 

directly grants Christians and other religions preference over Muslim refugees. 

Facts About Plaintiff Hadil Al-Mowafak

43. Plaintiff Hadil Al-Mowafak is a Yemeni national who is currently in her freshman 

year at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California and hopes to earn her undergraduate degree in 

2020. She possesses a valid F-1 multiple-entry student visa that was duly issued on July 29, 

2016. She has continuously resided in the United States since September 17, 2016. Plaintiff AlMowafak currently plans to travel to Yemen in the summer of 2017 to visit her husband, who 

lives in Yemen. Because her husband does not have a United States visa, the only way that 

Plaintiff Al-Mowafak can see her husband is if she travels to Yemen to visit him.

44. In addition to being unable to travel to see her husband, Plaintiff Al-Mowafak 

fears that if she is not permitted to re-enter the United States because of the Executive Order and 

its implementation, she will be prevented from continuing her undergraduate studies. She is also 

fearful about the effects of the Provisional Revocation Letter on her immigration status.

Facts About Plaintiff Wasim Ghaleb

45. Plaintiff Wasim Ghaleb is a 23-year-old national of Yemen, who attends 

Grossmont College in San Diego, California. He is majoring in business administration. He 

hopes to complete his Associate degree at Grossmont College, transfer to a Bachelor of Arts 

program at a university, and complete his studies in 2020. 

46. On January 15, 2016, Ghaleb traveled to Saudi Arabia to spend time with family 

during a break in the academic schedule. As the holder of a valid, multiple-entry F-1 visa that 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 14 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-13-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

would allow him to re-enter at any time prior to February 23, 2017, Ghaleb intended to return on 

January 28, 2017, to begin the new semester on January 30. 

47. On January 28, Plaintiff Ghaleb went to the airport in Jeddah and boarded a British 

Airways flight to London with a reservation on a connecting flight to Los Angeles, California. 

When he arrived in London and went to the gate for his flight to Los Angeles International 

Airport (“LAX”), he heard his name being called over a loudspeaker. When Plaintiff Ghaleb 

approached the counter, individuals he understood to be U.S. agents of Defendant DHS informed 

him that he could not continue on his flight to LAX because Defendant Trump had banned 

citizens from seven countries—including Yemen—from traveling to the United States. Plaintiff 

Ghaleb showed the agents his Form I-20 and valid F-1 entry visa, to demonstrate that he had 

permission to enter the United States, but the agents told him he had no choice but to return to 

Jeddah. 

48. Based on instructions from the U.S. agent who informed Plaintiff Ghaleb of the 

travel ban, Plaintiff Ghaleb arranged for a return flight to Jeddah on British Airways. He spent 

seven hours in the London airport wondering what his future would hold, worrying that he would 

not be able to complete the semester at Grossmont College, and making calls and asking 

questions to try to find a way to travel to the United States before returning to Jeddah. Plaintiff 

Ghaleb has already missed several days of the new semester, but he is eager to return and intends 

to complete the semester if the U.S. will honor his duly issued F-1 visa and Form I-20. 

Facts About Plaintiff John Doe 

49. Plaintiff John Doe is an Iranian national who is currently a Ph.D. candidate at 

University of California, Berkeley. Plaintiff Doe expects to receive his Ph.D. by May of 2017. 

He holds a 3.9 grade point average and has published scholarly articles in prestigious scientific 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 15 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-14-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

journals. He possesses a valid F-1 student visa and has continuously resided in the United States 

since September 2012. Plaintiff Doe currently lives in Albany, California. He is completing his 

fifth and final year of study in engineering. 

50. In December 2016, before the Executive Order was issued, Plaintiff Doe applied 

for Optional Practical Training (“OPT”). OPT is post-graduation work authorization for 

international students. After he applied for OPT, he received and accepted a job offer for a 

product development position at a top Fortune 50 Company in Silicon Valley. He fears that his 

OPT will be affected. If his OPT is affected by the Executive Order, then he will be unable to 

start his job on a timely basis and may be denied the job. Plaintiff Doe is also fearful about the 

effects of the Provisional Revocation Letter on his immigration status.

51. For the reasons set forth below, the Executive Order and Provisional Revocation 

Letter unlawfully deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the United States Constitution and the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, and are ultra vires. 

Facts Common to all Members of the Plaintiff Class 

52. Since the Executive Order was announced on January 27, 2017, its implementation 

by Defendants and their agents has been marked by chaos and confusion. 

53. For example, on at least several occasions, Defendants and their agents have 

unlawfully required persons seeking entry into the United States who otherwise possessed valid 

visas or lawful permanent residence status to “voluntarily” renounce their U.S. immigration status 

by signing documents such as U.S. Customs and Immigration Services Form I-407, which is 

entitled “Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status,” under the false 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 16 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-15-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

representation that, if they did not do so, they would be ineligible for entry into the United States 

for a period of at least five years. 

54. As a result, individual Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class reasonably fear 

that, in the event they attempt to enter or re-enter the United States, they will be denied 

permission to do so, notwithstanding their previously established lawful presence in the United 

States and the fact that they are otherwise admissible. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

55. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (1) 

and (b) (2), on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, 

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen (the “Designated Countries”) who currently are, or 

recently have been, lawfully present in California and who, but for the January 27, 2017 

Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter, would be able to travel to the United 

States or leave and return to the United States. This includes the following subclasses: 

(a) Nationals of the Designated Countries who resided in California and left the United 

States prior to issuance of the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter with 

the intent to return, and are currently abroad; and 

(b) Nationals of the Designated Countries who reside in California and were lawfully 

present in the United States upon issuance of the Executive Order and the Provisional 

Revocation Letter, and wish to be able, in the future, to leave the United States 

temporarily and return to the United States. 

56. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. According to the 

Annual Report of the Visa Office, in 2015, the last year for which data are available, the United 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 17 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-16-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

States issued approximately 85,000 immigrant and non-immigrant visas to nationals from the 

seven Designated Countries.14 On information and belief, a large number of such persons reside, 

or have recently resided, in California.

57. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law, including 

but not limited to whether the Executive Order violates their associational, religious exercise and 

due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 

the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

58. The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of fact, including 

but not limited to whether the Executive Order is being or will be enforced so as to prevent them 

from entering the United States from abroad or from re-entering the United States should they 

choose to leave the United States briefly, even though they would otherwise be admissible.

59. The claims or defenses of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses 

of members of the Plaintiff Class.

60. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff 

class. The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the 

interests of the Plaintiff class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiffs include 

experienced civil rights attorneys and are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional 

litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.

61. Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally 

applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate 

 

14 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2015AnnualReport/FY15AnnualReportTableIII.pdf ; 

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2015AnnualReport/FY15AnnualReportTableXVIII.pdf [last accessed on February 1, 2017]. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 18 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-17-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(b) (2).

62. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class would 

create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may 

therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (1).

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT ONE 

FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT, FREE EXERCISE, SPEECH AND 

ASSEMBLY CLAUSES 

63. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

64. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion or the prohibition 

of the free exercise of religion. 

65. The Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter constitute an unlawful 

attempt to discriminate against Muslims and to establish a preference for one religion over 

another. References in the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter to the seven 

Designated Countries are transparently a pretext for the underlying aim to establish this 

preference. 

66. Plaintiffs are harmed by this preference in that Defendants seek to disadvantage 

them, as compared to other religions, in the consideration and continuation of their status as 

lawfully entering, or being present in the United States. 

67. The Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter also violate the rights 

of Plaintiffs ACLU-NC and Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay to receive 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 19 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-18-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

information and speech from, and to associate freely with, the individual Plaintiffs and Plaintiff 

class members. 

COUNT TWO 

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 

68. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

69. The Executive Order and the Provisional Relocation Letter will have the effect of 

imposing a special disability on the basis of religious views or religious status, by withdrawing 

important immigration benefits principally from Muslims on account of their religion. In doing 

so, the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter place a substantial burden on 

Muslims’ exercise of religion in a way that is not the least restrictive means of furthering a 

compelling governmental interest. 

70. Defendants’ actions therefore constitute a violation of the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 et seq.

COUNT THREE 

FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION 

71. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

72. The Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter discriminate against 

Plaintiffs on the basis of their country of origin, and without sufficient justification, and therefore 

violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

73. Additionally, the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter were 

substantially motivated by animus toward—and have a disparate effect on—Muslims, which also 

violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 20 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-19-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

COUNT FOUR 

FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 

74. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

75. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts 

in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of 

the Fifth Amendment. 

76. The United States government is obligated by international law and by U.S. law, 

including but not limited to the INA, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(13)(C), to fairly process for entry or reentry into the United States those persons who are lawful permanent residents, who have 

established a significant connection with the United States and continuously resided in the United 

States, or who have complied with all of the legal and procedural requirements for lawful entry 

into the United States. 

77. Defendants’ actions, as described above, have denied Plaintiffs who are currently 

outside the United States the opportunity to re-enter the United States, and have denied Plaintiffs 

who currently lawfully reside in the United States, the opportunity to travel outside the United 

States, for fear that they will be denied re-entry. Such actions, taken pursuant to the Executive 

Order, violate the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 

COUNT FIVE 

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 

78. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

79. The INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s 

nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 21 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-20-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

80. Defendants’ actions as set forth above were arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, 

power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or 

short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D). 

COUNT SIX 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 

81. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained 

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

82. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2), places clear limits on the 

exercise of discretion to revoke a visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i). Specifically, the Secretary of 

State must comply with statutory procedures for the revocation of a visa; the Secretary’s action 

must not exceed his or her statutory authority; and the Secretary must respect the constitutional 

rights enjoyed by visa holders. 

83. The Provisional Revocation Letter is facially improper because it was issued on a 

blanket basis, without considering information related to the eligibility of any individual alien. 

Under 22 C. F. R. § 41.122(b)(2) and 22 C. F. R. § 41.82(b), a visa can only be provisionally 

revoked on the basis of a particularized finding that a visa holder is ineligible. 

84. The Provisional Revocation Letter is also facially defective for lack of proper 

notice. Under 22 C. F. R. § 41.122(c) and 22 C. F. R. § 41.82(c), notice of provisional revocation 

must be given to the visa holder where practicable, unless otherwise instructed by the Department 

of State. There is no evidence of an instruction not to give notice, or that notice was not 

practicable. 

85. Defendants’ actions as set forth above were arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 22 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-21-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or 

short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court grant the following relief: 

1. A determination that this action may properly be maintained as a class action 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2); 

2. A declaration that the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter are 

in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class members for the reasons set forth above. 

3. An injunction that the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter may 

not be enforced as against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class members in connection with their entry or 

re-entry into the United States; 

4. An award to the Plaintiff Class of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; and, 

5. Such other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper. 

Dated: February 2, 2017 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, INC. 

By: s/Christine P. Sun 

CHRISTINE P. SUN 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 23 of 36
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-22-

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DEC. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1144492.01 

Dated: February 2, 2017 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

By: s/R. Adam Lauridsen 

R. ADAM LAURIDSEN 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 24 of 36
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 25 of 36
THE WHITE HOUSE 

Office of the Press Secretary 

For Immediate Release 

January 27, 2017 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 

- - - - - - - 

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST 

ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES 

 By the authority vested in me as President by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 

et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to 

protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign 

nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as 

follows: 

 Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a 

crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and 

stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no 

instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented 

consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa 

applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on 

to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance 

process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks 

to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these 

measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were 

admitted to the United States. 

 Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or 

implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, 

including foreign nationals who entered the United States after 

receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered 

through the United States refugee resettlement program. 

Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, 

strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that 

terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United 

States. The United States must be vigilant during the visaCase 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 26 of 36
issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission 

do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to 

terrorism. 

 In order to protect Americans, the United States must 

ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile 

attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United 

States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support 

the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies 

over American law. In addition, the United States should not 

admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including 

"honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the 

persecution of those who practice religions different from their 

own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, 

or sexual orientation. 

 Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to 

protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit 

terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the 

admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United 

States immigration laws for malevolent purposes. 

 Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other 

Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular 

Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of 

National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to 

determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate 

any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA 

(adjudications) in order to determine that the individual 

seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is 

not a security or public-safety threat. 

 (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation 

with the Secretary of State and the Director of National 

Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the 

results of the review described in subsection (a) of this 

section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's 

determination of the information needed for adjudications and a 

list of countries that do not provide adequate information, 

within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of 

Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the 

Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. 

 (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on 

relevant agencies during the review period described in 

subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 27 of 36
maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of 

foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are 

established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or 

criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant 

entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred 

to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would 

be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I 

hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and 

nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this 

order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic 

visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for 

travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). 

 (d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in 

subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed 

for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all 

foreign governments that do not supply such information to start 

providing such information regarding their nationals within 

60 days of notification. 

 (e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of 

this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the 

President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a 

Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of 

foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling 

on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, 

C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, 

and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the 

information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section 

until compliance occurs. 

 (f) At any point after submitting the list described in 

subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the 

names of any additional countries recommended for similar 

treatment. 

 (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection 

(c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation 

described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of 

State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and 

when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration 

benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits 

are otherwise blocked. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 28 of 36
 (h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall 

submit to the President a joint report on the progress in 

implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this 

order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, 

a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a 

fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order. 

 Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All 

Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National 

Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the 

adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify 

individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent 

basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of 

causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will 

include the development of a uniform screening standard and 

procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity 

documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate 

documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended 

application forms that include questions aimed at identifying 

fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure 

that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process 

to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively 

contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to 

make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to 

assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit 

criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States. 

 (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction 

with the Secretary of State, the Director of National 

Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report 

on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of 

this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this 

order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this 

order. 

 Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program 

for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend 

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 

days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in 

conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in 

consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall 

review the USRAP application and adjudication process to 

determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure 

that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 29 of 36
to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall 

implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who 

are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the 

initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the 

date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the 

Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for 

nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National 

Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional 

procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of 

the United States. 

 (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary 

of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent 

permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by 

individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, 

provided that the religion of the individual is a minority 

religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where 

necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland 

Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would 

assist with such prioritization. 

 (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria 

as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States 

and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have 

determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP 

to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with 

the national interest. 

 (d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 

refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the 

interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry 

until such time as I determine that additional admissions would 

be in the national interest. 

 (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed 

pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of 

State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit 

individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case 

basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine 

that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the 

national interest -- including when the person is a religious 

minority in his country of nationality facing religious 

persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 30 of 36
States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international 

agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying 

admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a 

risk to the security or welfare of the United States. 

 (f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President 

an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection 

(b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by 

individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 

100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second 

report within 200 days of the date of this order. 

 (g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the 

extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local 

jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining 

the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens 

eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To 

that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine 

existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with 

applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater 

involvement in the process of determining the placement or 

resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall 

devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement. 

 Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to 

the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of 

State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the 

Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority 

in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the 

terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related 

implementing memoranda. 

 Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit 

Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 

expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entryexit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as 

recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon 

the United States. 

 (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 

President periodic reports on the progress of the directive 

contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report 

shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a 

second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of 

this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 

days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall 

submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is 

fully deployed and operational. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 31 of 36
 Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of 

State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver 

Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 

8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a 

nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to 

specific statutory exceptions. 

 (b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the 

availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall 

immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by 

substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or 

making permanent the period of service, and making language 

training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows 

for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic 

ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times 

are not unduly affected. 

 Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State 

shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to 

ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, 

truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity 

period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a 

country does not treat United States nationals seeking 

nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of 

State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or 

other treatment to match the treatment of United States 

nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable. 

 Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To 

be more transparent with the American people, and to more 

effectively implement policies and practices that serve the 

national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with 

applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly 

available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter: 

(i) information regarding the number of foreign 

nationals in the United States who have been charged 

with terrorism-related offenses while in the United 

States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while 

in the United States; or removed from the United 

States based on terrorism-related activity, 

affiliation, or material support to a terrorismrelated organization, or any other national security 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 32 of 36
reasons since the date of this order or the last 

reporting period, whichever is later; 

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign 

nationals in the United States who have been 

radicalized after entry into the United States and 

engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have 

provided material support to terrorism-related 

organizations in countries that pose a threat to the 

United States, since the date of this order or the 

last reporting period, whichever is later; and 

(iii) information regarding the number and types of 

acts of gender-based violence against women, including 

honor killings, in the United States by foreign 

nationals, since the date of this order or the last 

reporting period, whichever is later; and 

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety 

and security as determined by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including 

information on the immigration status of foreign 

nationals charged with major offenses. 

 (b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the 

date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term 

costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels. 

 Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order 

shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive 

department or agency, or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget relating to budgetary, 

administrative, or legislative proposals. 

 (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with 

applicable law and subject to the availability of 

appropriations. 

 (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create 

any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law or in equity by any party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or 

agents, or any other person. 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 33 of 36
 DONALD J. TRUMP 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

 January 27, 2017. 

 # # # 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 34 of 36
EXHIBIT B 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 35 of 36
United States Department of State 

Deputy Assistant Secretcuy 

for Visa Services 

Washington, D. C. 20520 

January 27, 2017 

Upon request of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and pursuant to 

sections 212(±) and 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 22 CFR 

41.122 and 42.82, and in implementation of'section 3( c) of the Executive Order on 

Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, I hereby 

provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of 

' Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to the exceptions 

discussed below. 

The revocation does not apply to visas in the following nonimmigrant 

classifications: A-1, A-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO, C-2, or certain diplomatic 

visas. 

The revocation also does not apply to any visa exempted on the basis of a 

determination made by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Secmity pursuant to 

section 3(g) of the Executive Order on a case-by-case basis, and when in the 

national interest. 

This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the 

United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or 

agents, or any other person. 

~~a:=-----

Edward J. Ramotowski 

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Bureau of Consular Affairs 

Department of State 

Case 3:17-cv-00557-WHO Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 36 of 36