Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/339954439/Ramirez-Medina-v-DHS-Amended-Petition-and-Complaint-2-21-17
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:34:19+00:00

Document:
Amended Habeas Petition and Complaint in Ramirez Medina v. US Department of Homeland Security filed by Mr. Ramirez's counsel on February 21, 2017.
16 Director of the Seattle Field Office of U.S.
28 DACA FAQs), at 2 (Question 1).
2 sensitive personal information, pay a substantial fee, and submit to a rigorous background check.
15 done everything required under the specific terms of the DACA program.
28 applicants most assuredly relied, must continue to be honored.).
2 conduct other aspects of daily life that are otherwise often unavailable for undocumented immigrants.
15 the United States Constitution.
20 DACA renewal was approved.
28 Childhood Arrivals (May 5, 2016) (hereinafter DACA Approval Notice).
5 as an admitted gang member, despite having no evidence to support its false allegations.
16 that lives up to the promises it makes.
19 prevent further constitutional violations.
23 Court also has remedial authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.
25 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District.
28 (Feb. 16, 2017)), at 1.
3 nor has any answer been filed by Respondents.
6 which is a matter that is not the subject of this petition.
13 been in ICEs custody in Tacoma, Washington since February 10, 2017.
15 responsibility for, among other things, administering and enforcing the nations immigration laws.
19 7. Respondent John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. He is sued in his official capacity.
23 sued in his official capacity.
8 background check, and pay a considerable fee.
26 came-to-us-as-children.pdf (hereinafter DHS Memo), at 1.
Ex. A, at 1 (USCIS DACA FAQs, Question 1).
16 June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum from being rescinded.
19 application was granted in 2014.
Id. at 7 (USCIS DACA FAQs, Question 23).
Id. at 23 (USCIS DACA FAQs, Question 65).
26 Charles E. Grassley (Apr. 17, 2015) (hereinafter USCIS Letter), at 1.
Id. at 2; Ex. A, at 8 (USCIS DACA FAQs, Question 26).
Ex. E, at 4 2 (USCIS Letter).
5 action under the DACA program.
12 three separate occasions that Mr. Ramirez does not pose a threat to national security or public safety.
14 lucrative employment so that he can better support his three-year old son, a United States citizen.
15 He also hoped to save money so that he could continue his education.
21 ICE agents to enter or search the premises.
22 26. Upon seeing Mr. Ramirez in the apartment, an ICE agent began to question him.
25 agents placed Mr. Ramirez in handcuffs.
Ex. C (DACA Approval Notice).
4 ICE agents that Mr. Ramirez had a legal work permit, and questioned why he was being detained.
6 involved with a gang, nor did they ask him about his tattoo.
9 Mr. Ramirez had a work permit and was therefore lawfully living and working in the United States.
14 DACA recipient with work authorization pursuant to DACA.
17 valid Employment Authorization Document through May 4, 2018.
24 and questioned him aggressively in an effort to get him to admit that he was a gang member. Mr.
2 affiliated and never had been.
13 tattoo must be a gang member.
20 change their pre-conceived, racially-motivated, and erroneous beliefs.
5 whatsoever to the Paizas gang.
12 outside is underneath a tarp, surrounded by walls.
16 rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See Dkt. #1.
19 Mr. Ramirez has been in custody for at least 240 hours.
2 2017, which was filed with the Immigration Court on February 14, 2017. Dkt. #32 at 5.
4 automatically on the day ICE issued his NTA. Id. at 23.
6 concocted a constantly-shifting story about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention.
11 and has a visible tattoo, which is simply not a gang tattoo. Respondents attempted to coerce Mr.
16 to members of the media false information in furtherance of this campaign.
Reuters U.S. Top News (Feb. 14, 2017)), at 1 (emphasis added).
Dkt. #32-3, Ex. C (I-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Feb. 10, 2017)), at 3.
6 for it; and no such corroborating evidence has been filed with this Court.
10 conduct and unjustifiable treatment of Mr. Ramirez.
15 that Mr. Ramirezs name or supposed gang affiliation has been located in any of those databases.
2 not a gang tattoo.
11 than the fact that he is of Mexican heritage and has a tattoo.
21 portion stating I came in and the officers said . . . is still visible, although barely so.
26 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
2 protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
4 including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.).
9 plaintiffs have a protected property or liberty interest and, if so, the extent or scope of that interest.
11 Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 56970 (1972)).
15 Process] Clause protects. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690.
22 reasonable expectation of entitlement to that interest.
5 the benefits provided under that program.
19 (footnotes omitted), affd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016).
26 of the existing procedures and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards.
3 interests to see whether the procedures provided are constitutionally sufficient.
8 inadequate, and the governments interest in in detaining Mr. Ramirez is non-existent.
16 rights by arresting and detaining him.
25 denied both notice and a hearing.
See Ex. D (DHS Memo), at 2 (emphasis added).
4 itself has determined on multiple occasions that he poses no risk to public safety or national security.
6 procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
10 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
21 state interest. (internal citations and quotations omitted)).
26 justificationfor depriving Mr. Ramirez of his fundamental rights.
22 (citing Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 53, 57 (9th Cir. 1970)).
24 of his substantive due process rights.
4 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
7 909 (9th Cir. 1983).
13 includes weekends) violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law. See Cnty. of Riverside v.
14 McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57 (1991).
22 these circumstances, Respondents are violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
9 U.S. 497, 500 (1954) (applying Equal Protection Clause to the federal government).
13 available. Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 26667 (1977).
24 valid arrest warrant. In the ordinary course and according to Respondents regular procedures, Mr.
26 permit and was thus expressly authorized by DHS to live and work in the United States.
9 and national origin discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
14 was being detained despite his DACA status because he is not from the United States.
25 violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
5 invidious racial and national origin stereotyping.
17 (5) Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.
23 /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.