Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 74 ~JIIDGE SC,~pFI~L~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL; NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD; and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,

14 Cv

:~ .~

Plaintiffs, No.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION 1. This action seeks to compel the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and its component agencies to disclose documents under the Freedom ofInformation Act("FOIA"). The Plaintiffs plan to use those documents to enhance public understanding of recent government policies with respect to the implementation of "expedited removal"—a truncated deportation process—against families with minor children, including those detained by DHS at the Artesia Family Residential Center in New Mexico. 2. Since the start of 2014, the flow of Central American families seeking refuge in the United States has increased significantly. Many of these recent migrants are fleeing persecution and extreme danger in their home countries. In response,in June 2014,DHS opened a makeshift detention facility in Artesia, New Mexico, on the grounds of a federal law

1

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 2 of 74
enforcement training facility, to detain women and minor children who recently arrived from Central America.
3. The detention center is profoundly isolated—over 200 miles away from the closest major metropolitan area. Pursuant to DHS's policies and procedures, the families detained at Artesia have been denied adequate means of communicating with the outside world; denied information, or provided with insufficient or deficient information, about their rights under the immigration laws; deprived of meaningful access to counsel; and ultimately forced to navigate pro se a complex immigration process that is heavily weighted against them.
4. DHS recently opened another family detention center in Karnes, Texas, and reportedly intends to open an additional family detention center in Dilley, Texas in the near future—which will become the largest immigration detention facility in the nation.
5. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and its implementing regulations—as well as under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution—the women and children detained in Artesia have a right to seek asylum and related relief and to have a fair hearing to present their claims. However,the process at Artesia falls far short of the government's obligations under existing law.l The government has created a deportation mill at Artesia. DHS has deported, and routinely continues to deport, mothers and children back to their home countries, where they face serious harm, without giving them a meaningful opportunity to present their claims. As Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has stated: "[O]ur message
I The Plaintiffs currently are representing a group of women and children detained at Artesia in a lawsuit challenging the government's expedited removal policies under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause. See M.S.P.C. et al. v. Johnson et al., No. 1:14-cv01437 (D.D.C., complaint filed Aug. 22, 2014). The information sought in the instant FOIA request is broader in scope than the claims at issue in M.S.P.C. and is intended to inform public deliberation concerning the expedited removal offamilies.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 3 of 74
to this group is simple: we will send you back."Z Consistent with this statement, a June 30, 2014 letter from President Obama to Congress called for "an aggressive deterrence strategy focused on the removal and repatriation ofrecent border crossers."3
6. DHS and its component agencies have released to the public very few directives or memoranda setting forth the policies and procedures governing the expedited removal process as applied to families with minor children, including those detained at Artesia. For example, the government has withheld from the public memoranda or policy guidance concerning the detention of families with minor children who have been potentially subject to expedited removal since the beginning of 2014. The government has similarly failed to disclose information concerning the physical characteristics of its detention facilities; the timing and scheduling of credible fear interviews at Artesia; the resources available to individuals in detention to understand their rights in the expedited removal process, access documents, and obtain and communicate with counsel; and access to detained persons by non-government organizations ("NGOs") offering to provide pro Bono legal assistance. As a result, the public lacks information needed to develop an informed view of DHS's activities with respect to families subject to expedited removal in general, and at Artesia in particular.
7. To shed light on DHS's policies, procedures and other guidance regarding the expedited removal process as applied to families and minor children, including those detained at
2 Hearing on the Review of the President's Emergency Supplemental Request fog
Unaccoynpanied Children and Related Matters, Before the S. Comrn. on Appropriations(July 10, 2014)(statement of Jeh Johnson, Sec'y of Homeland Sec. of the United States), available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/07/10/statement-secretary-homeland-securityjehjohnsonsenate-committee-appropriations(last visited on Oct. 7,2014). 3 See Letter to Congress, President Barack H. Obama, Efforts to Address the Humanitarian Situation in the Rio Grande Valley Areas of Our Nation's Southwest Border (June 30, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/30/letter-president-effortsaddress-humanitarian-situation-rio-grande-vane (last visited on Oct. 7,2014).
3

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 4 of 74
Artesia, on July 29, 2014, the American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Civil Liberties Union (collectively, "the Plaintiffs") submitted a FOIA request addressed to DHS as well as its component agencies, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (collectively, "the Defendants"). A copy ofthat request is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A.
8. The Plaintiffs requested that each agency expedite its processing of this request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) based upon the urgency to inform the public about this federal government activity—which has potentially life-threatening consequences for the families and children removed and subject to removal, and which is the subject of great public interest—and based upon the status of the Plaintiffs as organizations primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public. Exhibit A at 4-6;5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
9. Four of the Defendants (Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) have denied Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing, and the other Defendant(U.S. Customs and Border Protection)simply has not responded to that request at all, let alone within the statutory time period for a response. Moreover, none of the Defendants has made any determination whether to comply with the Plaintiffs' request for documents—or produced any documents in response to that request—even though the ordinary, non-expedited statutory time period for such a determination expired weeks ago. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6).
10. The Defendants' denial ofthe Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing, and the Defendants' failure to make any determination concerning the requested records within the statutory time period, violates FOIA and is impeding the Plaintiffs' efforts to educate the public
C!

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 5 of 74

about time-critical government activities. The requested information is of interest to a wide cross-section ofthe public given the Defendants' increase in the use offamily detention centers, including the Artesia facility. The Plaintiffs therefore bring this action pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, for injunctive and declaratory relief to compel the release of agency records improperly being withheld from them by DHS and its component agencies.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1l. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B)and (a)(6)(E)(iii)and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

12. Venue properly rests with this Court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) because one of the Plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union, has its principal place of business within this District.

13. The Plaintiffs have exhausted any and all administrative remedies in connection

with their FOIA requests, as detailed below.

Plaintiffs

PARTIES

American Immigration Council

14. Plaintiff American Immigration Council ("Immigration Council") is a nonprofit

organization with its principal place of business at 1331 G Street, NW,Suite 200, Washington,

DC. Founded in 1987, the Immigration Council is primarily engaged in disseminating

information to the public. Its mission is to increase public understanding ofimmigration law and

policy, advocate for the just and fair administration of our immigration laws, educate the public

about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants, and protect the legal rights of

noncitizens.

5

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 6 of 74
15. The Immigration Council's blog, http://ImmigrationImpact.com, is one of the premier sites for daily information and analysis on immigration-related developments at the federal, state, and local level. The Immigration Council provides robust analysis of current topics in immigration through fact sheets, special reports, and opinion essays. Its guides to current topics in immigration law—such as major legislation, legal cases, or current events—are widely read and cited. Through statements, press releases, editorials, and other public outreach, as well as its many publications, the Immigration Council provides policymakers, the media, and advocates vital information that informs the public debate on immigration.
16. The Immigration Council's legal department undertakes administrative advocacy, impact litigation, and education to ensure that immigration law is interpreted and implemented in a manner that is sensible and humane. It frequently pursues FOIA requests, including through litigation where necessary, to promote greater transparency by the immigration agencies. It also publicly disseminates practice advisories concerning key issues in immigration law through its website.
National Immigration Proiect of the National Lawyers Guild 17. Plaintiff National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild ("National Immigration Project")is a nonprofit membership organization with its principal place ofbusiness at 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602, Boston, Massachusetts. Members and supporters ofthe National Immigration Project include attorneys, legal workers, law students, judges, jailhouse lawyers, grassroots advocates, community organizations, and others seeking to defend and expand the rights of immigrants in the United States. For over 40 years, the National Immigration Project has been promoting justice and equality oftreatment in all areas ofimmigration law,the criminal justice system, and social policies related to immigration.
D

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 7 of 74
18. The National Immigration Project is primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public. The National Immigration Project is the author of four treatises on immigration law published by Thomson Reuters. The staff of the National Immigration Project provide technical and litigation assistance, participate in impact litigation, advocate for fair and just policies and legislation, provide legal training to the bar and the bench, and regularly publish practice advisories and community resources on immigration law topics, which are disseminated to its members as well as to a large public audience through its website, www.nationalimmigrationproject.org.
American Civil Liberties Union 19. Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") is a nonprofit organization with its principal place of business at 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, New York. The ACLU is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization with over 500,000 members dedicated to the constitutional principles of liberty and equality. The ACLU is committed to holding the United States government accountable to principles of due process and the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. 20. The ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project is a project of the ACLU that was established in 1987 to expand and enforce the civil rights and civil liberties of noncitizens and to combat discrimination against immigrants. The ACLU seeks to improve the quality of justice for all noncitizens and therefore has a keen interest in the just administration of the nation's immigration laws. 21. The ACLU is primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public. The ACLU publishes newsletters, provides news briefings, and publishes and disseminates reports on civil liberties issues, right-to-know documents, and other materials to the public through its
7

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 8 of 74

communications department and its 53 state-based affiliates. Its material is widely available to everyone, including tax-exempt organizations, not-for-profit groups, and law students and faculty, for no cost or for a nominal fee through its public education department. The ACLU also disseminates information through a public website (at http://www.aclu.org). Among other civil liberties and civil rights issues, this website addresses immigrants' rights issues in depth (at http://www.aclu.org/immigrants), provides features on immigrants' rights issues in the news, and contains hundreds of documents relating to the ACLU's work. The website specifically features information obtained through FOIA requests.4 The ACLU also publishes an electronic newsletter distributed to subscribers via email; airs regular podcasts; maintains a blog known as the Blog of Rights (at http://blog.aclu.org); releases information via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter; and has produced a television series on civil liberties issues entitled The Freedom Files. Defendants
22. Defendant DHS is a department of the executive branch of the United States government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 5520. DHS is responsible for administering and enforcing federal immigration laws. Upon information and belief, DHS has possession and control over records requested by the Plaintiffs.
23. Defendant Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ("CRCL") is a component ofDHS and is an agency within the meaning of5 U.S.C. § 5520. Among other duties, CRCL is responsible for promoting respect for civil rights and civil liberties in policy creation and

4 See, e.g., https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/secret-immigration-enforcement-memo-

exposed; https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/dhs-continues-state-and-local-immigration-

enforcement-program-without-meaningful-c; https://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-

and-liberty/executive-order-12333-foia-lawsuit;

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-

security/five-takeaways-newly-released-drone-memo.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 9 of 74
implementation within DHS and advising DHS leadership and personnel on these issues. Upon information and belief, CRCL has possession and control over records requested by the Plaintiffs.
24. Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services("USCIS")is a component ofDHS and is an agency within the meaning of5 U.S.C. § 5520. Among other duties, USCIS, through its asylum officers, conducts interviews of certain individuals placed in expedited removal to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution and should be permitted to apply for asylum. Upon information and belief, USCIS has possession and control over records requested by the Plaintiffs.
25. Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement("ICE") is a component of DHS and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 5520. Among other duties, ICE operates and oversees the detention of noncitizens held in custody during the expedited removal process and executes the removal of noncitizens. Upon information and belief, ICE has possession and control over records requested by the Plaintiffs.
26. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection("CBP")is a component ofDHS and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 5520. Among other duties, CBP screens, processes and temporarily detains noncitizens who are apprehended near the border and placed in expedited removal proceedings. Upon information and belief, CBP has possession and control over records requested by the Plaintiffs.
D

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 10 of 74

STATEMENT OF FACTS A. DHS's Policies,Procedures,and Practices at the Artesia Facility
Are a Subject of Intense Public Interest and Concern. 27. In June 2014, DHS opened a detention facility in Artesia, New Mexico, to detain Central American women and minor children who were potentially subject to expedited removal from the United States. 28. The policies, procedures and practices related to the implementation of the expedited removal process in Artesia have generated intense public interest and concern in recent months, and have been reported widely in the news media.s Indeed, a search of the Lexis "All English Language News" database for the words "Artesia" and either "immigrant" or "refugee" since June 2014 resulted in more than 700 unique hits. A number of Members of Congress have also visited the Artesia facility, and still others have written to DHS Secretary Johnson to express their concern regarding the government's treatment of women and children subject to expedited removal.b

See, e.g., Julia Preston, As U.S. Speeds the Path to Deportation, Distress Fills New Family

Detention Centers, New York Times, Aug. 5, 2014, available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/us/seeking-to-stop-migrants-from-risking-trip-us-speeds-

the-path-to-deportation-for-families.html? r=0(last visited Oct. 7,2014); Melissa del Bosque,At

New Detention Facility It's `Hurry Up and Deport'Central Americans,Texas Observer, July 23,

2014, available at http://www.texasobserver.org/new-facility-hurry-deport-central-americans/

(last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville, Flood of I~cmigrant

Families at Border Revives Do~ynant Detention PNograrn, NBC News, July 25, 2014, available

at

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-

border-revives-dormant-detention-program-n164461 (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Diana

Washington Valdez, Lawyer: ICE facility in ANtesia, N.M., like Guantanamo, El Paso Times,

Aug. 15, 2014, available at http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_26342591/lawyer-ice-

facility-artesia-n-m-like-guantanamo (last visited Oct. 7,2014).

° See, e.g., Letter from Senator Patrick Leahy et al. to Secretary Jeh Johnson, Oct. 16, 2014, available at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/101614-toJohnson-re-dilley-detentioncenter; Juan Carlos Llorca, DHS secretary visits Artesia, N.M.,facility; Warns ifnmigrants `we will send you back,'El Paso Times, July 11, 2014(reporting visit by Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico), available at http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_26128803/dhs-secretary-
10

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 11 of 74
29. Media reports about expedited removal processing in Artesia also have raised
serious due process concerns. In particular, many news articles have focused on whether the
women and children detained at Artesia are receiving the process required by law.8 To the extent
that many of these women and children may have valid claims to asylum, their wrongful or
illegal removal could result in their deaths or serious physical injury. Indeed, to date, DHS
visit-artesia-nm-migrant-detention-center (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Rick Nathanson, Artesia divided on detainees, Albuquerque Journal, July 4, 2014 (reporting visit by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico), available at http://www.abgjournal.com/425025/news/artesia-divided-ondetainees.html (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Assoc. Press, NM congresswoman: Immigrants not getting legal yep, Washington Times, July 18, 2014 (reporting visit of Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham), available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/18/nm-congresswomanimmigrants-not-getting-legal-rep/(last visited Oct. 7,2014).
'See, e.g., Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville, Flood ofhnrrcigrant Faynilies at BordeN Revives Dormant Detention PNograrn, NBC News, July 25, 2014, available at http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461 (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Michael Oleaga, Imncigrants' Rights Groups Discuss Conditions of Detained Mothers and Children at Artesia Family Detention Center, Latin News, July 24, 2014, available at http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140724/immigrants-rights-groups-artesia-familydetention-center.htm (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Benjamin Goad, Groups Cite "Horrific" Condztzons at Immigrant Detention Center, The Hill, July 24, 2014, available at http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/213264-groups-cite-horrific-conditions-forimmigrant-detainees (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Cindy Carcamo, Child's Detention Despite Citizenship Reveals Irnmig~ation Case Woes, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 2014, available at http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-citizen-detained-20140815-story.html (lasted visited Oct. 7, 2014); New Family Detention Centers Hold Iynmzg~ant Women and Children Without Bond as Asylum Claims Pend, Democracy Now, Aug. 14, 2014, available at http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/14/new family_detention_centers_hold_immigrant (last visited Oct. 7,2014).
a See, e.g., David McCumber and Susan Carroll, Imfnig~ant Detention Centers DecNied by Advocates as `Deportation Factories,' Houston Chronicle, Aug. 13, 2014, available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Immigrant-detention-centers-decried-by-criticsas-5684471.php (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Melissa del Bosque, At New Detention Facility It's `Hu~ry Up and Depot' Central Americans, The Texas Observer, July 23, 2014, available at http://www.texasobserver.org/new-facility-hurry-deport-central-americans/ (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); Jason Buch, Advocates Say Deportation May Disrupt Due Process, Houston Chronicle, July 19, 2014, available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houstontexas/houston/article/jbuch-express-news-netTwitterjlbuch-5633398.php (last visited Oct. 7, 2014).
11

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 12 of 74
already has deported at least 306 women and children from Artesia to the countries from which they had fled.9 Thus,there is an imminent threat to the lives or physical safety ofthe women and children who are currently detained at Artesia.
30. As noted above, DHS recently opened another family detention center in Karnes, Texas, and reportedly intends to open an additional family detention center in Dilley, Texas in the near future—which will become the largest immigration detention facility in the nation.lo B. The Plaintiffs' FOIA Request.
31. Despite the high level of public interest and concern regarding DHS's practices, policies, and procedures at the Artesia facility, DHS has publicly released very few memoranda or guidance documents concerning the facility and the manner in which expedited removal is applied to families with minor children at Artesia and at other new family detention centers that DHS has established or is establishing in Texas. See supra at ¶ 6.
32. To obtain these documents of significant public interest, on July 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs submitted an identical FOIA request to each ofthe Defendants,for any agency records that the Defendants prepared, received, transmitted, collected or maintained "that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation ofINA § 235(b)[8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)](`expedited removal')since June 1,2014." See Exhibit A.

9 Melinda Henneberger, When an IYnmigration Detention Center Cones to a Small Town,

Washington

Post,

Oct.

1,

2014,

available

at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/O1/when-an-immigration-detention-

center-comes-to-a-small-town/ (last visited Oct. 7, 2014); see also Cindy Carcamo, Nearly 300

wofnen, chzldren deported from incmigNation detention centers, L.A. Times, Aug. 21, 2014,

available at http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-new-mexico-immigration-

deportation-20140821-story.html (last visited Oct. 7, 2014).

to See Letter from Senator Patrick Leahy to Secretary Jeh Johnson, Oct. 16, 2014, available at http://www.leahy.senate.Gov/download/101614-to-johnson-re-dilley-detention-center.

12

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 13 of 74
Specific Documents Requested
33. The request specified that "[s]uch records shall include, but are not limited to, all
policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations and guidelines that address:
• "When to apply INA § 235(b) and related regulations to families with minor children.
• "Application of8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)to families with minor children.
• "Detention of families with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited removal.
• "When ICE or CBP officers must refer individuals for credible fear interviews, including individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Whether individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, will have credible fear interviews.
• "Resources that are available or needed to conduct expedited removal, including the credible fear interviews, for individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including the extent and configuration of physical space, communications resources, child care, interpretation, training, and staff.
• "Procedures for conducting credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Timing and/or scheduling of credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Standards applicable in credible fear determinations, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Creation of a written or videotaped record during the expedited removal process, including the credible fear process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "The review process for credible fear determinations for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, including
13

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 14 of 74
submission of the case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and/or notice ofa hearing before an immigrationjudge.
• "Access to counsel, including advising individuals of their right to counsel, during the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear interview, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Access to interpreters during the expedited removal process, including with respect to individuals apprehended andJor detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Access to interpreters for other purposes for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "Public, media, and/or NGO access to the facility in Artesia, New Mexico at which DHS is detaining families 'with minor children, and to proceedings (including credible fear review proceedings and removal proceedings) at the facility.
"Access to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including access to counsel, procedures to receive and/or send mail, access to phones and other communications equipment, and/or access to medical attention.
• "Issuance of expedited removal orders (I-860) to individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico.
• "The physical removal of individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including any processes or procedures leading to their removal.
"Handbooks, rules, manuals, or other written documents (excluding those that pertain specifically to an individual's case) provided to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico or to staff at the detention center."
Exhibit A at 2-4
Request for Expedited Processing
34. In addition to making their FOIA request, the Plaintiffs also requested that each
Defendant expedite processing of their request. See Exhibit A at 4. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(6)(E), agencies shall provide expedited processing of records where "the person
requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i)(I). A
14

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 15 of 74
compelling need exists when there is, "with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v).~i
35. The Plaintiffs are organizations that are "primarily engaged in disseminating information,"see 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II), as described above,see supra at ¶¶ 14-21.
36. Expedited processing of this FOIA request is justified because it concerns federal government activity about which there is urgency to inform the public, and thus a "compelling need," 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E). Release of the requested information will help to inform the public about the policies and procedures that the government is applying to mothers and children who are seeking refuge in the United States as a result of persecution in their home countries, and about DHS's decision to significantly increase the use of family detention for women and children apprehended while entering the United States.
37. Release of these documents also will contribute to atime-sensitive public discussion regarding whether DHS's policies are sensible, lawful, fair, and humane. That public discussion is urgent for several reasons.
38. First, DHS continues to detain women and children without bond and to deport them to their countries of origin despite the possibility that they will face persecution and serious harm or death upon their return. These government activities have attracted significant public attention and concern. See supra at ¶¶ 28-29.
11 The Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request seeking similar records related to the implementation of expedited removal at Artesia that are maintained by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review. Concluding that the subject ofthe request concerns a"matter of widespread and exceptional media interest," the Department of Justice granted expedited processing. See Exhibit O.
15

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 16 of 74
39. Second, DHS is in the process of establishing additional family detention facilities, located in Texas. See supra at ¶ 30. The public needs the information sought in this request to evaluate existing family detention facilities and the application of expedited removal procedures in those facilities and to formulate an educated opinion as to whether family detention is appropriate at all, and, to the extent that family detention does continue to exist, what policies and procedures should apply.
40. Third, attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the women and children detained in Artesia more effectively and to decide whether and how to act swiftly to challenge those ongoing policies, procedures, and practices through advocacy, public education, or litigation.
Request for a Fee Waiver 41. The Plaintiffs additionally requested a fee waiver pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). Under that provision, a requesting party is entitled to a fee waiver when "disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester." Id. 42. As discussed supra at ¶~ 36-40, the disclosed records will educate the public— including but not limited to attorneys and other advocates who seek to represent or otherwise assist women and children detained in Artesia—about DHS's policies and procedures regarding families subject to the expedited removal process. The documents will also inform the public debate on the government's response to the increased apprehension of women and children in recent months and the significant expansion ofthe use offamily detention centers.
16

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 17 of 74
43. The Plaintiffs have the capacity and intent to disseminate widely the requested information to the public. All of the Plaintiffs intend to post the information obtained through this FOIA request on their publicly accessible websites. The Plaintiffs' websites collectively receive millions of page views per year. The Plaintiffs also intend to publish a summary of the information received and to disseminate that summary to the public through their websites. Finally, the Plaintiffs have regular contact with national print and news media and intend to share information gleaned from the FOIA disclosures with interested media.
44. The Plaintiffs do not seek the requested information for commercial gain, but rather for the purpose of educating interested members of the public and raising awareness of DHS's treatment of detained mothers and children at Artesia. C. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Request.
45. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii), each Defendant was required to make a determination on a request for expedited processing within 10 days of receiving the Plaintiffs' request, and each was required to ensure "expeditious consideration" of appeals of such determinations.
46. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A), each Defendant was required to determine whether to comply with the Plaintiffs' request within 20 working days after receiving the Plaintiffs' request and to notify the Plaintiffs concerning such determination. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B), each Defendant could extend the time for making such a determination by up to ten working days upon making a finding that "unusual circumstances" existed under the statute.
17

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 18 of 74
DHS's Response 47. In a letter dated August 8, 2014, Defendant DHS acknowledged having received Plaintiffs' FOIA request on July 30, 2014. The letter response of DHS to the Plaintiffs' request is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 48. In its response, DHS stated that it would use the additional ten days provided for "unusual circumstances" to process the Plaintiffs' request. Accordingly, DHS was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents by September 9, 2014, which was 30 working days after July 30, 2014. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, however, DHS has not notified the Plaintiffs of any determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents. 49. In its August 8, 2014 letter, DHS also denied the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing. See Exhibit B. The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal on August 21, 2014. Plaintiffs' administrative appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In a letter dated September 29, 2014, DHS denied the administrative appeal. That letter response is attached hereto as Exhibit I~ 50. In its August 8, 2014 letter, DHS "conditionally granted" the Plaintiffs' fee waiver request. See Exhibit B. 51. The Plaintiffs sent a follow up letter to DHS on September 5, 2014, reminding DHS of its obligation to make a determination on Plaintiffs' request and appealing DHS's nonresponse. That letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 52. On October 20, 2014, DHS responded to the Plaintiffs' September 5, 2014, letter, treating that letter as an administrative appeal of its non-response to the Plaintiffs' request. DHS indicated that the Plaintiffs were not required to file the appeal to have exhausted their administrative remedies. DHS noted that a tracking number had been assigned to the FOIA
18

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 19 of 74
request, but did not dispute that DHS had not yet made any determination regarding that request. DHS additionally reaffirmed its August 8, 2014, denial of the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing,see supra at ¶49. That letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
CRCL's Response 53. Following up on their initial July 29, 2014 request, the Plaintiffs sent a follow up
letter to CRCL on September 5,2014,reminding CRCL ofits obligation to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request and appealing CRCL's non-response. That letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit E.
54. In a letter dated September 11, 2014, Defendant CRCL acknowledged having received the Plaintiffs' FOIA request on July 30, 2014. The letter response of CRCL to the
Plaintiffs' request is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
55. CRCL did not invoke the additional ten days provided for "unusual circumstances." Accordingly, CRCL was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs'
request for documents by August 27, 2014, which was 20 working days after July 30, 2014.
However, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, CRCL has not made any determination
on the Plaintiffs' request for documents. On October 20,2014,DHS responded to the Plaintiffs'
September 5, 2014, letter on behalf of CRCL,treating that letter as an administrative appeal of CRCL's non-response to the Plaintiffs' request. DHS indicated that the Plaintiffs were not
required to file the appeal to have exhausted their administrative remedies. DHS noted that
CRCL had assigned a tracking number to the Plaintiffs' FOIA request, but did not dispute that CRCL had not yet made any determination regarding that request. DHS additionally adopted by
reference its August 8,2014, denial ofthe Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing (see supra at ¶ 49). See Exhibit F.
19

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 20 of 74
USCIS's Response 56. In a letter dated August 11, 2014, Defendant USCIS acknowledged receipt of the Plaintiffs' July 31, 2014 request and granted the Plaintiffs' request for a fee waiver. In the same letter, USCIS invoked the additional ten days for "unusual circumstances." The letter did not make any determination regarding the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing. The letter response of USCIS to the Plaintiffs' request is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 57. Accordingly, USCIS was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents by September 23, 2014 at the latest, which was 30 working days after August 11,2014. However,as ofthe date ofthe filing ofthis Complaint,USCIS has not notified the Plaintiffs of any determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents. 58. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to USCIS reminding USCIS of its obligation to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents and its request for expedited processing. See Exhibit E. 59. On September 18, 2014, USCIS responded in a letter that treated. the Plaintiffs' September 5, 2014 letter as an administrative appeal of the agency's constructive denial of the request for expedited processing. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as E~ibit I. USCIS affirmed its denial of expedited processing. In reaching its decision, USCIS considered whether only one of the three Plaintiffs, ACLU, was an organization primarily engaged in the dissemination ofinformation to the public. Its decision as to the ACLU did not account for all of the public education activities described above in Paragraph 21, and USCIS did not address at all whether either of the other two Plaintiffs are primarily engaged in the dissemination of information to the public,see supra at ¶¶ 14-18.
20

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 21 of 74
ICE's Response 60. In a letter dated August 8, 2014, Defendant ICE acknowledged having received the Plaintiffs' FOIA request on August 8, 2014. ICE also denied the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing and granted a conditional fee waiver. The letter response of ICE to the Plaintiffs' request is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 61. ICE invoked the additional ten days for "unusual circumstances." Accordingly, ICE was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request at the latest by September 22,2014, which was 30 working days after August 8,2014. However,as ofthe date ofthe filing of this Complaint, ICE has not notified the Plaintiffs of any determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents. 62. The Plaintiffs sent a follow up letter to ICE on September 5,2014,reminding ICE of its obligation to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request and appealing ICE's constructive denial ofthe request. See Exhibit E. 63. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal of ICE's denial ofexpedited processing. The appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 64. On October 7, 2014, ICE issued a ruling concerning the Plaintiffs' appeal of its non-response and denial of expedited processing. ICE ruled that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to expedited processing because there was no urgency to inform the public about the subject matter of the Plaintiffs' request, beyond the public's interest in knowing about federal government activity generally. With respect to ICE's constructive denial of the FOIA request, ICE indicated merely that it was processing the request. It did not dispute that ICE had not yet made any determination regarding that request. ICE's ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
21

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 22 of 74
CBP's Response 65. In an email dated July 29,2014,Defendant CBP acknowledged the submission of Plaintiffs' FOIA request on July 29, 2014. The email response of CBP to the Plaintiffs' request is attached hereto as Exhibit M. 66. Accordingly, CBP was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents by August 26, 2014, which was 20 working days after July 29, 2014. However, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, CBP has not notified the Plaintiffs of any determination on the Plaintiffs' request for documents. 67. CBP was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing by August 8, 2014. However,as ofthe date ofthe filing ofthis Complaint,CBP has not notified the Plaintiffs of any determination on the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing. 68. CBP has not notified the Plaintiffs of any determination on the Plaintiffs' request for a fee waiver. 69. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to CBP reminding CBP of its request for documents and the agency's obligation to make a determination concerning that request. See Exhibit E. However, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, CBP has not responded to that letter. 70. The only correspondence received from CBP since the Plaintiffs' request was filed was an email sent by CBP on October 2, 2014, indicating that the tracking number for the Plaintiffs' request had changed. That email is attached hereto as Exhibit N.
22

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 23 of 74
COUNT ONE Violation ofthe Freedom ofInformation Actfor
Denial of FOIA Request (Defendants DHS,ICE,CBP,USCIS,and CRCL) 71. The Plaintiffs repeat, allege, and incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1-70 as iffully set forth herein. 72. On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs made a request under FOIA to each of the Defendants for responsive records. 73. The Defendants were obligated under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to the FOIA request and to issue a determination concerning that request within the time period set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6}--20 working days, to be extended by no more than 10 working days in the event that the agency finds the existence of"unusual circumstances." 74. The Defendants did not conduct a reasonable search within the statutory time period, nor does any legal basis exist for the Defendants' failure to search for these records and make a determination concerning the Plaintiffs' request within the statutory time period. 75. The Defendants' failure to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to the FOIA request, to make a determination concerning the Plaintiffs' request, and to disclose responsive records violates 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A),(a)(3)(B),(a)(3)(C), and (a)(6)(A), as well as the regulations promulgated thereunder. 76. The Defendants' failure to make a determination concerning the Plaintiffs' request for documents within the statutory time period constitutes a constructive denial of the Plaintiffs' request, and the Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to each Defendant. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
23

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 24 of 74
77. The interests of the Plaintiffs and of the public in the requested records, as detailed above in Paragraphs 14-21, 27-30, and 36-40, are irreparably harmed by Defendants' failure to search for and disclose responsive records. That harm outweighs any burden placed on Defendants, which is a burden that Congress chose to impose by enacting a statute with time limits for agency action.
COUNT TWO Violation ofthe Freedom ofInformation Act for Denial of the Plaintiffs' Request for Expedited Processing (Defendants DHS,ICE,CBP,USCIS,and CRCL) 78. The Plaintiffs repeat, allege, and incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1-70 as iffully set forth herein. 79. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii), each Defendant was required to make a determination on the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing within 10 days of receiving the request and must ensure "expeditious consideration" ofappeals ofsuch determinations. 80. Four of the Defendants, DHS, CRCL, ICE, and USCIS, denied the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing. Upon the Plaintiffs' administrative appeals,DHS,CRCL,ICE, and USCIS affirmed those denials. By administratively appealing the adverse decisions on expedited processing by DHS, CRCL, ICE, and USCIS, the Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to those agencies. 81. One of the Defendants, CBP, has provided no response to the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing. Accordingly, CBP is deemed to have constructively denied the Plaintiffs' request, and the Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to CBP. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). 82. The Plaintiffs are entitled to expedited processing because they are "primarily engaged in disseminating information," as described in Paragraphs 14-21 above, and there is

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 25 of 74
"urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity," 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v), as described in Paragraphs 36-39 above.
83. The denial by Defendants DHS, ICE, USCIS, CBP, and CRCL of the Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E).
84. The interests of the Plaintiffs and the public in the expeditious processing of the requested records are irreparably harmed by the Defendants' denial of expedited processing. That harm outweighs any burden placed on the Defendants in expeditiously processing the Plaintiffs' request, which is a burden that Congress chose to impose.
COUNT THREE Violation ofthe Freedom ofInformation Act for Denial of Plaintiffs' Request for Fee Waiver
(Defendant CBP) 85. The Plaintiffs repeat, allege, and incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1-70 as iffully set forth herein. 86. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a fee waiver. As discussed in Paragraphs 36-43 above, "disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) 87. The failure to respond to the Plaintiffs' fee waiver request by Defendant CBP is a constructive denial of that request that violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
►.~

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 26 of 74 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter ajudgment: a. Declaring that the Defendants' failure to conduct a reasonable and timely search for records responsive to the FOIA request and their refusal to disclose such records violates the FOIA; b. Declaring that the Defendants' denial of expedited processing of the Plaintiffs' FOIA request violates the FOIA; c. Declaring that the Defendant CBP's denial ofa fee waiver violates the FOIA; d. Ordering the Defendants to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to the FOIA request on an expedited processing schedule and to produce such records to the Plaintiffs; e. Enjoining the Defendants from withholding records responsive to the FOIA request and ordering them to promptly produce the same; f. Ordering the Defendant CBP to grant the Plaintiffs a public interest fee waiver; g. Awarding the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and h. Granting all other such reliefto the Plaintiffs as the Court deemsjust and proper.
26

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 27 of 74

Dated: New York, New York October 21,2014

Respectfully submitted,
1

Omar C.Jadwat(OJ5792) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th floor New York, NY 10004 Tel:(212)549-2600 Fax:(212)549-2654 ojadwat e,aclu.org

Michael W.Ross(MR4490) JENNER &BLOCK LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,NY 10022 Tel:(212)891-1600 Fax:(212)909-0821 mross(a,jenner.com

Jennifer Chang Newell(pNo hac vice forthcoming) American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel:(415)343-0774 Fax:(415)395-0950 jnewell(cr~,aclu.org

Matthew E. Price(pro hac vice forthcoming) JENNER &BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue,NW Suite 900 Washington,DC 20001-4412 Tel:(202)639-6089 Fax:(202)661-4920 mprice(cr~,jenner.com

Karen C.Tumlin(pro hac vice forthcoming) tumlin~,nilc.org Melissa S. Keaney(pro hac vice forthcoming) keaney(c~nilc.org Alvaro M.Huerta(pro hac vice forthcoming) huerta(a~nilc.org National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel:(213)639-3900 Fax:(213)639-3911

Melissa Crow(pro hac vice forthcoming) MCrow ,immcouncil.org Beth Werlin(pNo hac vice forthcoming) B Werlin(a~immcouncil.org American Immigration Council 1331 G St. N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C., 20005 Tel: (202)507-7500
Trina Realmuto(TR3684) National Immigration Project ofthe
National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 Tel:(617)227-9727 Fax:(617)227-5495 trina(a~nipnl~.org

Counselfog Plaintiffs

27

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 28 of 74
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 29 of 74
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
July 29,2014
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
U.S. Department ofHomeland Security FOIA/PA The Privacy Office 245 Murray Lane SW STOP-0655 Washington,DC 20528-0655 foia(a~hq.dhs. o~v
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Washington,DC 20528 CRCL(a~dhs.gov
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Freedom of Information Act Office 500 12th Street, SW,Stop 5009 Washington,DC 20536-5009 ICE-FOIAnea,dhs.gov
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office P. O.Box 648010 Lee's Summit, MO 64064-8010 uscis.foia(cr~,dhs.gov
U.S. Customs and Border Protection FOIA Officer 90 K Street NE,9th Floor Washington, DC 20229-1181 FOIA Officer/Public Liaison: Sabrina Burroughs CBPFOIA cr,cbp.dhs.gov

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 30 of 74

Re: Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)Request
Dear FOIA Officers:
The American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submit this letter as a request for information under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA),5 U.S.C. § 552,et seq. We ask that this request be expedited pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) and that we be granted a fee waiver.
Request for Information
The Requestors request disclosure ofthe following records ~ that were prepared,received, transmitted,collected and/or maintained by the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security(DHS), the Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS)2 that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA § 235(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014. Such records shall include, but are not limited to, all policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations and guidelines that address:
• When to apply INA § 235(b)and related regulations to families with minor children.

The term "records" as used herein includes all records or communications preserved in

electronic or written form,including but not limited to correspondence,regulations, directives,

documents,data, videotapes,audiotapes,e-mails,faxes,files, guidance, guidelines, standards,

evaluations, instructions, analyses, memoranda,agreements, notes,orders, policies, procedures,

protocols, reports, rules, manuals, technical specifications, training materials or studies,

including records kept in written form, or electronic format on computers and/or other electronic

storage devices, electronic communications and/or videotapes, as well as any reproductions

thereofthat differ in any way from any other reproduction,such as copies containing marginal

notations.

2

The term "CBP" means CBP Headquarters offices, including any divisions, subdivisions

or sections therein; CBP field operations offices, including any divisions, subdivisions or

sections therein; CBP offices at ports of entry, including any divisions, subdivisions or sections

therein; and/or any other CBP organizational structures. The term "ICE" means ICE

Headquarters offices(including but not limited to the Office ofthe Assistant Secretary(OAS),

Enforcement and Removal Operations(ERO),Homeland Security Investigations(HIS),

Management and Administration, Office ofthe Principal Legal Advisor(OPLA),and the Office

ofDetention Policy and Planning(ODPP),including any divisions, subdivisions or sections

therein); ICE field offices, including any divisions, subdivisions or sections therein; local Offices

of Chief Counsel; and any other ICE organizational structure. The term "USICIS" means USCIS

Headquarters offices, regional offices, district offices, field offices and/or any other

organizational structure.

2

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 31 of 74
• Application of8 C.F.R. § 2353(b)(2)to families with minor children.
• Detention offamilies with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited removal.
• When ICE or CBP officers must refer individuals for credible fear interviews, including individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Whether individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, will have credible fear interviews.
• Resources that are available or needed to conduct expedited removal, including the credible fear interviews, for individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico,including the extent and configuration ofphysical space,communications resources, child care, interpretation, training, and staff.
• Procedures for conducting credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Timing and/or scheduling of credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Standards applicable in credible fear determinations, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Creation ofa written or videotaped record during the expedited removal process, including the credible fear process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• The review process for credible fear determinations for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia,New Mexico,including submission ofthe case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and/or notice of a hearing before an immigration judge.
• Access to counsel,including advising individuals oftheir right to counsel,during the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear interview, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Access to interpreters during the expedited removal process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Access to interpreters for other purposes for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 32 of 74
• Public, media, and/or NGO access to the facility in Artesia, New Mexico at which DHS is detaining families with minor children,and to proceedings(including credible fear review proceedings and removal proceedings) at the facility.
• Access to individuals detained in Artesia,New Mexico,including access to counsel, procedures to receive and/or send mail, access to phones and other communications equipment, and/or access to medical attention.
• Issuance ofexpedited removal orders(I-860)to individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico.
~ The physical removal of individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including any processes or procedures leading to their removal.
• Handbooks,rules, manuals,or other written documents(excluding those that pertain specifically to an individual's case) provided to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico or to staff at the detention center.
Request for Expedited Processing
Expedited processing is warranted because there is "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity" by organizations "primarily engaged in disseminating information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). This request implicates a matter of urgent public concern, namely, government policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process in Artesia, New Mexico.
There is "an urgency to inform the public" about this government activity because early reports about expedited removal processing and detention conditions raise serious due process concerns.3 Further, attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the population of individuals in that facility more effectively and raise any potential challenges to those procedures in a timely manner. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1252(e)(3)(B)(expedited removal process may be challenged within 60 days of implementation ofchallenged directive, guideline or procedure). Accordingly,the failure to expedite processing ofthis request would prejudice Requestors' right to seekjudicial review by this statutory deadline.
Request for Waiver of Fees
See,e.g., Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,Flood ofImmigrant Families at Border Revives DoNmant Detention Program, NBC News,available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461(last visited July 28,2014); Michael Oleaga, Immigrants'Rights GroupsDiscuss ConditionsofDetainedMothers and Children atArtesia FamilyDetention Center,Latu1News, available a2:http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140724/immigrantsrights-groups-artesia-family-detention-center.htm (last visited July 28,2014).
4

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 33 of 74
Requestors ask that all fees associated with this FOIA request be waived. We are entitled to a waiver ofall costs because disclosure ofthe information is "...likely to contribute significantly to public understanding ofthe operations or activities ofthe government and is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester." 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(records furnished without charge or at a reduced rate ifthe information is in the public interest, and disclosure is not in commercial interest ofinstitution). In addition,the Requestors have the ability to widely disseminate the requested information. See Judicial Watch v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309(D.C. Cir. 2003)(finding a fee waiver appropriate when the requester explained, in detailed and non-conclusory terms, how and to whom it would disseminate the information it received).
A. Disclosure ofthe Information Is in the Public Interest
Disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities related to expedited removal processing for families. Such information is ofgreat public interest given the thousands ofindividuals who may be subject to expedited removal each year.4
Requestors have the capacity and intent to disseminate widely the requested information to the public.
The Immigration Council is anon-profit organization established to increase public understanding ofimmigration law and policy,advocate for the fair and just administration ofour immigration laws,protect the legal rights ofnoncitizens, and educate the public about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants. Our policy department researches issues related to immigration, and regularly provides information to leaders on Capitol Hill, the media, and the general public. Our legal department works with other immigrants' rights organizations and immigration attorneys across the United States to advance the fair administration of immigration laws, including those relating to the removal process.
NIPNLG is a national non-profit that provides technical and litigation support to immigrant communities,legal practitioners, and all advocates seeking to advance the rights ofnoncitizens. The NIPNLG provides training to the bar and the bench on immigration consequences of criminal conduct,and is the author offour treatises on immigration law published by Thomson Reuters. In addition, NIPNLG staff present, and regularly publish practice advisories, on immigration law topics, which are disseminated to its members as well as to a large public audience through its website, www.nationalimmigrationproject.org.
The ACLU is a nationwide, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. It is the largest civil liberties organization in the
4 In FY 2013,ICE deported about 101,000 people through the expedited removal process. U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement,FY2013ICEImmigration Removals,December 2013,p.4,available at:https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/2013-iceimmigration-removals.pdf(last visited July 28,2014).
5

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 34 of 74
country, with offices in the fifty states and over 500,000 members. It publishes newsletters, news briefings, right-to-know handbooks, and other materials that are widely disseminated to the public. These materials are made available to everyone—including tax-exempt organizations, non-profit groups, and law students and law faculty—for either no cost or for a nominal fee through its public education department. The ACLU also disseminates information through its high-traffic website, http://www.aclu.org. The website provides in-depth information on a range of civil liberties issues, addresses civil liberties issues that are currently in the news, and contains hundreds of documents relating to the ACLU's work. The website specifically features information obtained through FOIA. See, e.g., http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html; http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/index.html. The ACLU also publishes an electronic newsletter distributed to subscribers via email; airs regular podcasts; maintains a blog, http://blog.aclu.org; releases information via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter; and produces a television series on civil liberties issues. One or more ofthe Requestors will post the information obtained through this FOIA on its publicly accessible website. The Requestors' websites collectively receive millions of page views per year—for example,the Immigration Council's website has received 1.2 million page views this year and likely will receive 2 million by the end ofthe year. One or more ofthe Requestors also will publish a summary ofthe information received and will disseminate that summary. Finally,the Requestors have regular contact with national print and news media and plan to share information gleaned from FOIA disclosures with interested media.
B. Disclosure ofthe Information Is NotPrimarily in the CommercialInterest ofthe Requester
The Immigration Council, ACLU,and NIPNLG are not-for-profit organizations. The Requestors seek the requested information for the purpose ofdisseminating it to members ofthe public who have access to our public websites and other free publications, and not for the purpose of commercial gain.
**~
D

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 35 of 74
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us by telephone or email.
Sincerely,
Beth Werlin Deputy Director, Legal Action Center American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 507-7522 bwerlin cr,imn~council.org Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext.8 trina a,nipnla~ Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. New York,NY 10004 ~adwat cr,aclu.or~
7

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 36 of 74

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 37 of 74
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington,DC ?0528

August 8, 2014

~~~,~~~_,~., Homeland t.;~FVANTAii~'.... ~>>.
`°~~ SecuritY ~`^~^~Nn S6L~''
Privacy Office, Ntail Stop 0655

SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: CRestrepo@immcouncil.org

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street, NW Washington,DC 20005

Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108

Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York,NY 10004

Re: 2014-HQFO-00671

Dear Beth Werlin,Trina Realmuto,and Omar Jadwat:

This letter acknowledges receipt of your Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to the Department ofHomeland Security(DHS),dated July 29,2014,and to your requests for expedited handling and a waiver of all assessable FOIA fees. You also sent your request directly to the Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS),and U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP). This response pertains specifically to your request to DHS. Our office received your request on July 30,2014.

Specifically, you request records, since June 1,2014,that were prepared,received,transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security(DHS),the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP),U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)that contain, discuss,refer, or relate to policies,regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations,and guidelines with respect to the implementation ofINA § 235(b) ("expedited removal")that address the following:

• When to apply INA § 235(b)and related regulations to families with minor children,

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 38 of 74
• Application of8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)to families with minor children, • Detention offamilies with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited
removal, ~ When ICE or CBP officers must refer individuals for credible fear interviews, including
individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Whether individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, will
have credible fear interviews, • Resources that are available or needed to conduct expedited removal, including the
credible fear interviews, for individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico,including the extent and configuration ofphysical space,communications resources, child care, interpretation, training, and staff, • Procedures for conducting credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, ~ Timing and/or scheduling of credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Standards applicable in credible fear determinations, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Creation ofa written or videotaped record during the expedited removal process, including the credible fear process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • The review process for credible fear determinations for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia,New Mexico,including submission ofthe case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and/or notice ofa hearing before an immigration judge, • Access to counsel, including advising individuals oftheir right to counsel, during the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear interview, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Access to interpreters during the expedited removal process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Access to interpreters for other purposes for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Public, media, and/or NGO access to the facility in Artesia, New Mexico at which DHS is detaining families with minor children, and to proceedings (including credible fear review proceedings and removal proceedings) at the facility, • Access to individuals detained in Artesia,New Mexico,including access to counsel, procedures to receive and/or send mail, access to phones and other communications equipment, and/or access to medical attention, • Issuance ofexpedited removal orders(I-860)to individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico, • The physical removal of individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including any processes or procedures leading to their removal, • Handbooks,rules, manuals,or other written documents(excluding those that pertain specifically to an individual's case) provided to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico or to staff at the detention center.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 39 of 74
Your request for expedited treatment is hereby denied.
Under the DHS FOIA regulations,expedited processing ofa FOIA request is warranted ifthe request involves "circumstances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual,"6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). Requesters seeking expedited processing must submit a statement explaining in detail the basis for the request, and that statement must be certified by the requester to be true and correct. 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(3).
Your request for expedited processing is denied because you do not qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1). You have not established that lack of expedited treatment in this case will pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. In addition, you are not primarily engaged in the dissemination ofinformation to the public. Qualifying urgency would need to exceed the public's right to know about government activity generally, and you have not shown that you intend to educate the public beyond your limited constituency. Your letter was conclusory in nature and did not present any facts to justify a grant ofexpedited processing under the applicable standards.
If you deem the decision to deny expedited treatment of your request an adverse determination, you may exercise your appeal rights. Should you wish to do so, you must send your appeal and a copy ofthis letter within 60 days ofthe date ofthis letter to: Associate General Counsel(General Law), U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, Mailstop 0655, Washington,D.C.20528,following the procedures outlined in 6 C.F.R. § 5.9. Your envelope and letter should be marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Copies ofthe DHS regulations are available at: www.dhs.~ov/foia.
The Office ofGovernment Information Services(OGIS)also mediates disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as anon-exclusive alternative to litigation. If you are requesting access to your own records(which is considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under the Privacy Act of 1974. If you wish to contact OGIS, you may email them at ogis@nara.gov or call 1-877-684-6448.
Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Consistent with 6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,the Department processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although DHS'goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt of your request,FOIA does permit a 10-day extension ofthis time period in certain circumstances. As your request seeks documents that will require a thorough and wide-ranging search, and as the subject matter of your request is ofsubstantial interest to two or more components ofthis Department or of substantial interest to another agency, we will need to consult with those entities before we issue a final response. DHS will invoke a 10-day extension for your request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you would like to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
You have requested a fee waiver. The DHS FOIA Regulations at 6 CFR § 5.11(k)(2) set forth six factors DHS must evaluate to determine whether the applicable legal standard for a fee

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 40 of 74
waiver has been met: (1) Whether the subject ofthe requested records concerns "the operations or activities ofthe government,"(2)Whether the disclosure is "likely to contribute"to an understanding ofgovernment operations or activities,(3)Whether disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute to the understanding ofthe public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding ofthe requester or a narrow segment ofinterested persons,(4)Whether the contribution to public understanding ofgovernment operations or activities will be "significant,"(5)Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure, and(6)Whether the magnitude ofany identified commercial interest to the requester is sufficiently large in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester.
Upon review ofthe subject matter of your request, and an evaluation ofthe six factors identified above,DHS has determined that it will conditionally grant your request for a fee waiver. The fee waiver determination will be based upon a sampling ofthe responsive documents received from the various DHS program offices as a result ofthe searches conducted in response'to your FOIA request. DHS will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-commercial requesters, provide two hours ofsearch time and process the first 100 pages at no charge to you. Ifupon review ofthese documents,DHS determines that the disclosure ofthe information contained in those documents does not meet the factors permitting DHS to waive the fees,then DHS will at that time either deny your request for a fee waiver entirely, or will allow for a percentage reduction in the amount ofthe fees corresponding to the amount ofrelevant material found that meets the factors allowing for a fee waiver. In either case, DHS will promptly notify you of its final decision regarding your request for a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive records as required by applicable law.
In the event that your fee waiver is denied, and you determine that you still want the records, provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requestors. As anon-commercial requester you will be charged for any search time and duplication beyond the free two hours and 100 pages mentioned in the previous paragraph. You will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication and search time at the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. In the event that your fee waiver is denied, we will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. This office will contact you before accruing any additional fees.
Your request, as it pertains to this office, has been assigned reference number 2014-HQFO00671. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence with this office. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact this office at 1866-431-0486 or 202-343-1743.
Sincerely,
Linda Lasko FOIA Program Specialist

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 41 of 74
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 42 of 74
August 21,2014
Associate General Counsel(General Law) U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, Mailstop 0655 Washington, D.C. 20528
Re: Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal 2014-HQFO-00671
Dear FOIA Appeals Officer:
On July 29,2014,the American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submitted a request under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)for disclosure ofagency records that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of§ 235(b)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act,8 U.S.C.§ 1225(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014(Exhibit A). By letter dated August 8,2014,the Department ofHomeland Security denied our request for expedited processing(Exhibit B). Please consider this letter an appeal ofthe agency's denial ofexpedited processing. This appeal is timely filed within 60 days ofthe August 8,20l4 denial.6 C.F.R. § 5.9.
The agency asserted that the expedited processing request did not present "circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual,"6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i), or"an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). The agency denied the request because the requestors did not"qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)."
Contrary to the agency's assessment,requestors meet both the statutory and regulatory criteria for expedited processing.l Requestors have demonstrated an "an urgency to inform the public
'Though the Department ofHomeland Security has promulgated its own regulations addressing when expedited treatment is appropriate,the statutory criteria for expedited processing is not limited by these regulations. The FOIA statute directs agencies to allow "for expedited processing, not only `in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need;' but also `in other cases deteNmined by the agency."'Al-Fayed v. CIA,254 F.3d 300,307 n.7(D.C. Cir. 2001)(quoting 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(E)(i))(emphasis in original). This provision allows an agency "`latitude to expand the criteria for expedited access' beyond cases of `compelling need."'Id.(quoting H.R.Rep.No. 104-795,at 26).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 43 of 74
about an actual or alleged federal government activity" by organizations "primarily engaged in disseminating information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). The D.C. Circuit has looked to several criteria when determining whether there is an "urgency to inform," and a resulting "compelling need":"(1)whether the request concerns a matter ofcurrent exigency to the American public;(2)whether the consequences ofdelaying a response would compromise a significant recognized interest; and(3)whether the request concerns.federal government activity." Al-Fayed v. CIA,254 F.3d 300,310(D.C. Cir. 2001);see also Long v. Dept of Homeland Sec.,436 F. Supp.2d 38,42(D.D.C.2006)(applying the criteria to an expedited FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security).
This request plainly meets these criteria. First, there is "an urgency to inform the public" about this government activity. The government's policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process, including the application ofthis process to families with minor children apprehended or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, have been repeatedly raised and discussed by members ofCongress,the news media,and the public in recent weeks. See, e.g., Julia Preston,As U.S. Speeds the Path to Deportation, Distress Fills New Family Detention Centers,New York Times,Aug.5,2014,available at http://www.nytimes.com/20]4/08/06/us/seeking-to-stop-migrants-from-risking-trip-us-speedsthe-path-to-deportation-for-families.html?_r=0(last visited Aug. 16,2014). Furthermore,early reports about expedited removal processing in Artesia raise serious due process concerns.2 Second, a delayed response would compromise individuals' due process interests in significant ways. Attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the population of individuals in that facility more effectively and to raise any potential challenges to those procedures in a timely manner. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(B) (providing for challenge within 60 days ofimplementation ofchallenged directive, guideline or procedure). Moreover,a delay in public disclosure and discussion ofthese policies,procedures, and practices will likely allow problematic practices to persist longer than they otherwise would.
2 Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,Flood ofImmigrant Families at Border Revives Dormant Detention Program,NBC News,July 25,2014,available at http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461(last visited July 30,2014); Michael Oleaga, Immzg~ants'Rights Groups Discuss Conditions ofDetained Mothers and Children atArtesia Family Detention CenteN,Latin News,July 24,2014,available at http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140724/immigrants-rights-groups-artesia-familydetention-center.htm (last visited July 30,2014); Benjamin Goad, Groups Cite "Horrific" Conditions atImmigrantDetention Center, The Hill, July 24,2014,available at http://thehi ll.com/regulation/administration/213264-groups-cite-horrific-conditions-forimmigrant-detainees(last visited July 30,2014); Cindy Carcamo, Child's Detention Despite Citizenship Reveals Imrrrigration Case Woes,Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14,2014,available at http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-citizen-detained-20l 40815-storv.html (lasted visited Aug. 16,2014);New Farrrily Detention Centers HoldImmigrant Women and Children Without Bond as Asylum Claims Pend,Democracy Now,Aug. 14,2014,available at http://www.democracynow.or~/2014/8/14/new family detention centers hold immigrant(last visited Aug, 16,2014);
2

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 44 of 74
Third,this request obviously "concerns federal government activity" because both the proceedings and the detention facilities are federal.
We remind you that reporters and other media outlets are not the only entities primarily engaged in disseminating information. For example,a district court found the non-media entity Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to be "primarily engaged" in information dissemination. LeadeNship ConfeNence on Civil Rights v. Gonzales,404 F. Supp. 2d 246,260(D.D.C.2005). The court reasoned that the "Conference's mission [was]to serve as the site ofrecord for relevant and up-to-the minute civil rights news and information" and that it "disseminat[ed] information regarding civil rights and voting rights to educate the public, promote effective civil rights laws, and ensure their enforcement by the Department of Justice." Id. Just as the Leadership Conference was focused on civil rights news,the American Immigration Council is a non-profit organization established to increase public understanding of immigration law and policy. The Council advocates for the fair and just administration ofour immigration laws, protects the legal rights of noncitizens, and educates the public about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants. The Council's policy department researches issues related to immigration and provides up-to-the-minute information to leaders on Capitol Hill, the media, and the general public. NIPNLG,another ofthe Requestors,is also engaged in disseminating information. For over forty years, the National Immigration Project has promoted justice and equality oftreatment in all areas ofimmigration law,the criminal justice system,and social policies related to immigration. NIPNLG staff members often speak publicly and publish practice advisories and related written materials for the public and organizational members. Both the Council and NIPNLG make information provided through FOIA responses available on the organizations' websites,accessible by any member ofthe public. Finally, both the Council and NIPNLG have frequent contact with national print and news media and plan to share information from FOIA disclosures with interested media.
Separately,the request meets the regulatory criteria for expedited processing because denial of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i). The FOIA request seeks information about the expedited removal process as applied to individuals in Artesia. A key part ofthe expedited removal process is the "credible fear" interview for individuals who intend to seek asylum or who otherwise express a fear of persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). The credible fear interview is designed "to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture." 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d). Numerous news articles have raised questions about whether the women and children detained at Artesia are receiving fair credible fear interviews.3 Adding to the urgency,DHS currently is deporting individuals from Artesia.4 Thus, there is an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofthese women and children.
3 See, e.g., David McCumber and Susan Carroll, bnmigr~ant Detention Centers Decried by Advocates as `Deportation Factories,'Houston Chronicle, Aug. 13,2014,available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Immigrant-detention-centers-decried-by-criticsas-5684471.ph~(last visited Aug. 16,2014); Melissa del Bosque,AtNew Detention Facility It's `Hurry Up and Deport'Central Americans,The Texas Observer,July 23,2014,available at http://www.texasobserver.org/new-facility-hurry-deport-central-americans/(last visited Aug. 18,
3

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 45 of 74
Thank you for your prompt attention to this appeal. If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please do not hesitate to contact Beth Werlin at bwerlin(~immcouncil.ora or 202-5077522.
Sincerely,
Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005 (202)507-7522 bwerlin(c~,immcow~cil.oi•~
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext.8 trina cr,nipnl~.org
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. New York,NY 10004 ojadwat(a~aclu.org
2014); Jason Buch,Advocates Say Deportation May Disrupt Due Process, Houston Chronicle, July 19, 2014, available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houstontexas/houston/article/jbuch-express-news-netTwitter-jlbuch-5633398.php (last visited August 18, 2014). 4 See Russell Contreras and Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press, Aug.2014,available at http://www.abgjournal.com/448772/news/ice-resumes-deportations-from-artesia-center.ht~r~l (last visited Aug.20,2014).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 46 of 74
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 47 of 74

U.S. Department Of Homeland Security
United States Coast Guard

Office of Administrative Law Judges, Seattle United States Coast Guard

915 Second Avenue, Room 2609 Seattle, WA 98174 Staff Symbol: CG-OOJ Phone:206-220-7109 Fax: 206-220-7108 Email: Heather.L.MacCiintock@uscg.mil

5720 September 29,2014

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street Washington,DC 20005
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite b02 Boston, MA 02I08
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
Rte: DHS FOIA APPEAL 2014-HQAP-00086
Dear Ms. Werlin, Ms.Realmuto,and Mr.Jadwat:
"I~is letter is in response to your letter dated August 21,2014,in which you appealed the Agency's denial ofexpedited processing ofFOIA Request 2014-HQFO-00671.
Pursuant to a memorandum ofagreement,the United States Coast Guard Office ofthe Chief Administrative Law Judge is reviewing the FOIA appeals far the Department of Homeland Security General Counsel's office. Therefore,the Office ofthe Chief Administrative Law Judge will be rendering the official appeal decision on behalfofthe Departnnent ofHomeland Security.
After a thorough review of your appeal and all applicable documents,the Agency's decision is upheld. The Department of Homeland Security has promulgated regulations allowing for expedited processing ofrequests when normal processing could result in harm to the life or physical safety ofan individual or when a person primarily engaged in disseminating information submits a request where there is"an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity."6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1).
Please note, review of an agency's decision to deny expedited processing is "based on the record before the agency at the time ofthe determination."5 U.S.C.§ 552(a){6){E)(iii) (emphasis added). Your request stated you believe urgency exists "because early reports about expedited removal processing and detention conditions raise serious due process concerns" and because attorneys and other service providers require this information to effectively serve the affected population.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 48 of 74

A request for expedited processing under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1){ii) must contain specific information and be certified to be true and correct to the best ofthe requester's knowledge and belief.6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(3). While formal certification may be waived at the Agency's discretion,the regulations do not allow for deviations in the content ofa requestfor expedited processing. A requester who is not afull-time member ofthe news media must establish that his or her"main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination,though it need not be his or her sole occupation."6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(3). The requester must also show that there is a particular need to inform the public about the subject ofthe request, beyond the general right to know.Id.
While your request showed that each organization has the capacity to publish and disseminate information, you did not show that any ofthe requesting organizations is primarily engaged in information dissemination. I note that the appeal letter provided additional information regarding the organizations involved in making this request. It also argued that this request should be expedited under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i) and/or that the Agency should have expedited it even without a showing ofcompelling need,as allowed by 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(E)(i). However,the Agency did not have the benefit ofthis information or arguments when it made its determination. Y cannot say whether the supplemental information would have changed the Agency's analysis because it was not available at the time the Agency denied expedited processing.
This decision is the final action ofthe Department ofHomeland Security concerning FOIA Appeal 2014-HQFO-00086. While a comprehensive review of your appeal was made, you may seek judicial review ofthis decision pursuant to S U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) in United States District Courtfor either: 1)the district where you reside;2)the district where the agency records are situated; or 3)the District ofColumbia.

Sincerely,

g

~q ,

Heather L. MacClintock Attorney Advisor United States Coast Guard

Copy: Sent:

FOIA Officer,DHS Privacy Office Via FedEx to the above Addresses

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 49 of 74
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 50 of 74
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION ._~ COUNCIL
September 5,2014
Associate General Counsel(General Law) U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, Mailstop 0655 Washington, D.C. 20528
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofPrincipal Legal Advisor U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Freedom ofInformation Act Office 500 12th Street SW,Stop 5009 Washington, D.C. 20536-5009
FOIA Appeals,Policy and Litigation Branch U.S. Customs and Border Protection 90 K Street, NE,Washington,D.C.20229.
USCIS FOIA/PA Appeals Office 150 Space Center Loop, Suite 500 Lee's Summit, MO 64064-2139
Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL) U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Building 410, Mail Stop #0190 Washington, DC 20528
Re: Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal DHS- 2014-HQFO-00671;CBP - 2014-038899;ICE - 2014-ICFO-04325; USCIS - NRC2014085478
Dear FOIA Appeals Officers:
On July 29,2014,the American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submitted a request under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)for disclosure ofagency records that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of§ 235(b)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act,8 U.S.C.§ 1225(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014(Exhibit A).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 51 of 74
By letter dated August 8,2014,the Department ofHomeland Security("DHS")denied our request for expedited processing, invoked the statutory 10-day extension for responding to our request and conditionally granted our fee waiver request(Exhibit B).
By letters dated August 8,2014,U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement("ICE")denied our request for expedited processing, invoked the statutory 10-day extension for responding to our request, and conditionally granted our fee waiver request(Exhibit C).
Bye-mail dated July 29,2014,U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement("CBP")acknowledged receipt ofour FOIA request(Exhibit D).
By letter dated August 11,2014,U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services("USCIS")invoked the statutory 10-day extension for responding to our request, granted our fee waiver request and placed our request in the complex track(Track 2)for processing(Exhibit E).
The Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties("OCRCL")has not yet acknowledged receipt of our FOIA request.
On August 21,2014,Requestors submitted an appeal ofthe denial ofexpedited processing (Exhibit F). Please consider this letter an appeal ofDHS's constructive denial ofour FOIA request and a restatement of our request for expedited processing. This letter also is an appeal of the agency's conditional grant ofthe fee waiver request. Although DHS and ICE found that Requestors qualified for a fee waiver,they placed conditions on the grant ofthe waiver,stating the agency may ultimately deny the request after conducting a limited search. As set forth in our initial FOIA request, Requestors maintain that they qualify for a full fee waiver.
When a party submits a FOIA request,the agency has 20 business days to determine whether to produce records responsive to the request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). In unusual circumstances, this deadline may be extended for a maximum of 10 additional business days. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i). When an agency fails to meet the response times required by FOIA,requesting parties may deem the agency's delay a denial ofthe FOIA request and appeal the denial.See, e.g., Ruotolo v. DeptofJustice,53 F.3d 4,8(2d Cir. 1995)("[A]dministrative remedies are `deemed exhausted' ifthe agency fails to comply with the `applicable time limit' provisions of
the FOIA."); Voinche v. Fed. Bureau ofInvestigation,999 F.2d 962,963(5th Cir. 1993)("Ifan
agency has not complied within the statutory time limits ofa FOIA request,the requestor shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies and [may] bring suit."). DHS has failed to respond to our FOIA request within the 30 days provided under the FOIA statute.
FOIA incorporates a strong presumption in favor of mandatory disclosure ofrequested records. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. DeptofCommerce,317 F.3d 275,279(D.C. Cir. 2003)("FOIA accordingly mandates a `strong presumption in favor ofdisclosure."')(quoting DeptofJustice v. Ray,502 U.S. 164, 173(1991)). Agencies may deny a FOIA request only when the requested records fall under any ofthe nine exemptions listed in FOIA.5 U.S.C.§ 552(b)(1)-(9).DHS has not responded to our FOIA request and thus has not applied any ofthe statutory exemptions to withhold the records we requested. Accordingly, we are entitled to the requested records.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 52 of 74
Thank you for your prompt attention to this appeal. If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please do not hesitate to contact Beth Werlin at bwerlin(c~immcouncil.org or 202-5077522.
Sincerely,
Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005 (202)507-7522 bwerlin a,immcouncil.or~
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext.8 trina(cr~,nipnla.org
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. New York,NY 10004 ojadwat(a~aclu.or~

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 53 of 74

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 54 of 74
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION .~ COUNCIL
July 29,2014
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
U.S. Department ofHomeland Security FOIA/PA The Privacy Office 245 Murray Lane SW STOP-0655 Washington,DC 20528-0655 foia(a~hq.dhs.gov
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Washington, DC 20528 CRCL(a,dhs.~ov
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Freedom ofInformation Act Office 500 12th Street, SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 20536-5009 ICE-FOIA a,dhs.gov
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office P. O.Box 648010 Lee's Summit, MO 64064-8010 uscis.foia(c~dhs.gov
U.S. Customs and Border Protection FOIA Officer 90 K Street NE,9th Floor Washington,DC 20229-1 181 FOIA Officer/Public Liaison: Sabrina Burroughs CBPFOIA(a,cbp.dhs. o~v

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 55 of 74

Re: Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)Request
Dear FOIA Officers:
The American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submit this letter as a request for information under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA),5 U.S.C.§ 552,etseq. We ask that this request be expedited pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(E)and that we be granted a fee waiver.
Request for Information
The Requestors request disclosure ofthe following recordsi that were prepared,received, transmitted,collected and/or maintained by the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security(DHS), the Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS)2 that contain, discuss,refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA § 235(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014. Such records shall include, but are not limited to, all policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations and guidelines that address:
• When to apply INA § 235(b)and related regulations to families with minor children.

`

The term "records" as used herein includes all records or communications preserved in

electronic or written form, including but not limited to correspondence, regulations, directives,

documents,data, videotapes,audiotapes,e-mails,faxes,files, guidance, guidelines,standards,

evaluations, instructions, analyses, memoranda, agreements, notes, orders, policies, procedures,

protocols, reports, rules, manuals, technical specifications, training materials or studies,

including records kept in written form, or electronic format on computers and/or other electronic

storage devices, electronic communications and/or videotapes, as well as any reproductions

thereofthat differ in any way from any other reproduction,such as copies containing marginal

notations.

2 The term "CBP" means CBP Headquarters offices, including any divisions, subdivisions

or sections therein; CBP field operations offices, including any divisions, subdivisions or

sections therein; CBP offices at ports ofentry,including any divisions, subdivisions or sections

therein; and/or any other CBP organizational structures. The term "ICE" means ICE

Headquarters offices(including but not limited to the Office ofthe Assistant Secretary(OAS),

Enforcement and Removal Operations(ERO),Homeland Security Investigations(HIS),

Management and Administration, Office ofthe Principal Legal Advisor(OPLA),and the Office

ofDetention Policy and Planning(ODPP),including any divisions,subdivisions or sections

therein); ICE field offices, including any divisions, subdivisions or sections therein; local Offices

of Chief Counsel; and any other ICE organizational structure. The term "USICIS" means USCIS

Headquarters offices, regional offices, district offices, field offices and/or any other

organizational structure.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 56 of 74
• Application of8 C.F.R.§ 235.3(b)(2)to families with minor children.
• Detention offamilies with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited removal.
• When ICE or CBP officers must refer individuals for credible fear interviews, including individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Whether individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, will have credible fear interviews.
• Resources that are available or needed to conduct expedited removal, including the credible fear interviews, for individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico,including the extent and configuration ofphysical space,communications resources, child care, interpretation, training, and staff.
• Procedures for conducting credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Timing and/or scheduling of credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Standards applicable in credible fear determinations, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Creation ofa written or videotaped record during the expedited removal process, including the credible fear process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• The review process for credible fear determinations for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia,New Mexico,including submission ofthe case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and/or notice ofa hearing before an immigration judge.
• Access to counsel,including advising individuals oftheir right to counsel, during the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear interview, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Access to interpreters during the expedited removal process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Access to interpreters for other purposes for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 57 of 74
• Public, media,and/or NGO access to the facility in Artesia,New Mexico at which DHS is detaining families with minor children,and to proceedings(including credible fear review proceedings and removal proceedings) at the facility.
• Access to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including access to counsel, procedures to receive and/or send mail, access to phones and other communications equipment, and/or access to medical attention.
• Issuance ofexpedited removal orders(I-860)to individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico.
• The physical removal ofindividuals detained in Artesia,New Mexico,including any processes or procedures leading to their removal.
• Handbooks,rules, manuals,or other written documents(excluding those that pertain specifically to an individual's case) provided to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico or to staff at the detention center.
Request for Expedited Processing
Expedited processing is warranted because there is "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity" by organizations "primarily engaged in disseminating information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). This request implicates a matter of urgent public concern, namely, government policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process in Artesia,New Mexico.
There is "an urgency to inform the public" about this government activity because early reports about expedited removal processing and detention conditions raise serious due process concerns.3 Further, attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the population of individuals in that facility more effectively and raise any potential challenges to those procedures in a timely manner. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1252(e)(3)(B)(expedited removal process may be challenged within 60 days of implementation ofchallenged directive, guideline or procedure). Accordingly,the failure to expedite processing ofthis request would prejudice Requestors' right to seekjudicial review by this statutory deadline.
Request for Waiver of Fees
' See,e.g., Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,Flood ofbnmigrant Fafnilies at Border Revives Dormant Detention Program, NBC News,available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461(last visited July 28,2014); Michael Oleaga, ImmigrcArts'Rights Grcng~sDiscussConditionsofDetainedMothersandChila~enatA~tesiaFamilyDetention Center,Latin News, available a~:http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140'724/immigrantsrights-groups-artesia-family-detention-center.htm (last visited July 28,2014).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 58 of 74

Requestors ask that all fees associated with this FOIA request be waived. We are entitled to a waiver ofall costs because disclosure ofthe information is "...likely to contribute significantly to public understanding ofthe operations or activities ofthe government and is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). See also 6 C.F.R.§ 5.11(k)(records furnished without charge or at a reduced rate ifthe information is in the public interest, and disclosure is not in commercial interest ofinstitution). In addition,the Requestors have the ability to widely disseminate the requested information. See Judicial Watch v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309(D.C. Cir. 2003)(finding a fee waiver appropriate when the requester explained, in detailed and non-conclusory terms, how and to whom it would disseminate the information it received).
A. Disclosure ofthe Information Is in the Public Interest
Disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities related to expedited removal processing for families. Such information is of great public interest given the thousands of individuals who may be subject to expedited removal each year.4
Requestors have the capacity and intent to disseminate widely the requested information to the public.
The Immigration Council is anon-profit organization established to increase public understanding ofimmigration law and policy,advocate for the fair andjust administration ofour immigration laws, protect the legal rights of noncitizens, and educate the public about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants. Our policy department researches issues related to immigration, and regularly provides information to leaders on Capitol Hill, the media, and the general public. Our legal department works with other immigrants' rights organizations and immigration attorneys across the United States to advance the fair administration of immigration laws, including those relating to the removal process.
NIPNLG is a national non-profit that provides technical and litigation support to immigrant communities,legal practitioners, and all advocates seeking to advance the rights ofnoncitizens. The NIPNLG provides training to the bar and the bench on immigration consequences of criminal conduct,and is the author offour treatises on immigration law published by Thomson Reuters. In addition, NIPNLG staff present, and regularly publish practice advisories, on immigration law topics, which are disseminated to its members as well as to a large public audience through its website, www.nationalimmigrationproject.org.
The ACLU is a nationwide, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. It is the largest civil liberties organization in the

4

In FY 2013,ICE deported about 101,000 people through the expedited removal process.

U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement,FY2013ICEImmigration Removals,December

2013,p.4,available at:https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/2013-ice-

immigration-removals.pdf(last visited July 28,2014).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 59 of 74
country, with offices in the fifty states and over 500,000 members. It publishes newsletters, news briefings, right-to-know handbooks, and other materials that are widely disseminated to the public. These materials are made available to everyone—including tax-exempt organizations, non-profit groups, and law students and law faculty—for either no cost or for a nominal fee through its public education department.
The ACLU also disseminates information through its high-traffic website, http://www.aclu.org. The website provides in-depth information on a range of civil liberties issues, addresses civil liberties issues that are currently in the news, and contains hundreds of documents relating to the ACLU's work. The website specifically features information obtained through FOIA. See, e.g., http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.htm I; http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foialindex.html. The ACLU also publishes an electronic newsletter distributed to subscribers via email; airs regular podcasts; maintains a blog, http://blog.aclu.org; releases information via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter; and produces a television series on civil liberties issues.
One or more ofthe Requestors will post the information obtained through this FOIA on its publicly accessible website. The Requestors' websites collectively receive millions of page views per year—for example,the Immigration Council's website has received 1.2 million page views this year and likely will receive 2 million by the end ofthe year. One or more ofthe Requestors also will publish a summary ofthe information received and will disseminate that summary. Finally,the Requestors have regular contact with national print and news media and plan to share information gleaned from FOIA disclosures with interested media.
B. Disclosure ofthe Information Is NotPrimarily in the CommercialInterest ofthe Requester
The Immigration Council, ACLU,and NIPNLG are not-for-profit organizations. The Requestors seek the requested information for the purpose ofdisseminating it to members ofthe public who have access to our public websites and other free publications, and not for the purpose of commercial gain.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 60 of 74
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us by telephone or email.
Sincerely,
/ .,..~ -- ~~ ~
Beth Werlin Deputy Director, Legal Action Center American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 507-7522 bwerlin(~immcouncil.ora
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext.8 trina(c~nipnl .org
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18"t FI. New York,NY 10004 ojadwat(a~aclu.org

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 61 of 74
Ex i it B

••

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 62 of 74
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
=y ~~Ta~ Homeland ~QFpaKTtiF~ F
`°,F~~$~ SecuritY
Pr•ii~acy Office, Mail Stop 0655
August 8,2014
SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: CRestrepo@immcouncil.org
Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street, NW Washington,DC 20005
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York,NY 10004
Re: 2014-HQFO-00671
Dear Beth Werlin,Trina Realmuto,and Omar Jadwat:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to the Department ofHomeland Security(DHS),dated July 29,2014,and to your requests for expedited handling and a waiver of all assessable FOIA fees. You also sent your request directly to the Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS),and U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP). This response pertains specifically to your request to DHS. Our office received your request on July 30,2014.
Specifically, you request records,since June 1,2014,that were prepared,received,transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the U.S. Department ofHomeland Security(DHS),the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP),U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)that contain,discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations,.and guidelines with respect to the implementation ofINA § 235(b) ("expedited removal")that address the following:
• When to apply INA § 235(b)and related regulations to families with minor children,

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 63 of 74
• Application of8 C.F.R.§ 235.3(b)(2)to families with minor children, • Detention offamilies with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited
removal, • When ICE or CBP officers must refer individuals for credible fear interviews, including
individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Whether individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, will
have credible fear interviews, • Resources that are available or needed to conduct expedited removal, including the
credible fear interviews, for individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico,including the extent and configuration ofphysical space,communications resources, child care, interpretation, training, and staff, • Procedures for conducting credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Timing and/or scheduling of credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Standards applicable in credible fear determinations, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Creation ofa written or videotaped record during the expedited removal process, including the credible fear process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • The review process for credible fear determinations for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia,New Mexico,including submission ofthe case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and/or notice ofa hearing before an immigration judge, • Access to counsel,including advising individuals oftheir right to counsel,during the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear interview, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Access to interpreters during the expedited removal process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Access to interpreters for other purposes for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, • Public, media,and/or NGO access to the facility in Artesia,New Mexico at which DHS is detaining families with minor children,and to proceedings(including credible fear review proceedings and removal proceedings)at the facility, • Access to individuals detained in Artesia,New Mexico,including access to counsel, procedures to receive and/or send mail, access to phones and other communications equipment, and/or access to medical attention, • Issuance ofexpedited removal orders(I-860)to individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico, • The physical removal ofindividuals detained in Artesia,New Mexico,including any processes or procedures leading to their removal, • Handbooks,rules, manuals,or other written documents(excluding those that pertain specifically to an individual's case) provided to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico or to staff at the detention center.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 64 of 74
Your request for expedited treatment is hereby denied.
Under the DHS FOIA regulations,expedited processing ofa FOIA request is warranted ifthe request involves"circumstances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual,"6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information,"6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). Requesters seeking expedited processing must submit a statement explaining in detail the basis for the request, and that statement must be certified by the requester to be true and correct. 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(3).
Your request for expedited processing is denied because you do not qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1). You have not established that lack of expedited treatment in this case will pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual. In addition, you are not primarily engaged in the dissemination of information to the public. Qualifying urgency would need to exceed the public's right to know about government activity generally, and you have not shown that you intend to educate the public beyond your limited constituency. Your letter was conclusory in nature and did not present any facts tojustify a grant ofexpedited processing under the applicable standards.
If you deem the decision to deny expedited treatment of your request an adverse determination, you may exercise your appeal rights. Should you wish to do so, you must send your appeal and a copy ofthis letter within 60 days ofthe date ofthis letter to: Associate General Counsel(General Law), U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, Mailstop 0655, Washington,D.C.20528,following the procedures outlined in 6 C.F.R. § 5.9. Your envelope and letter should be marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Copies ofthe DHS regulations are available at: www.dhs.Qov/foia.
The Office ofGovernment Information Services(OGIS)also mediates disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as anon-exclusive alternative to litigation. If you are requesting access to your own records(which is considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under the Privacy Act of 1974. If you wish to contact OGIS, you may email them at ogis@nara.gov or call 1-877-684-6448.
Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Consistent with 6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,the Department processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although DHS'goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt of your request, FOIA does permit a 10-day extension ofthis time period in certain circumstances. As your request seeks documents that will require a thorough and wide-ranging search, and as the subject matter of your request is ofsubstantial interest to two or more components ofthis Department or of substantial interest to another agency, we will need to consult with those entities before we issue a final response. DHS will invoke a 10-day extension for your request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you would like to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
You have requested a fee waiver. The DHS FOIA Regulations at6 CFR § 5.11(k)(2)set forth six factors DHS must evaluate to determine whether the applicable legal standard for a fee

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 65 of 74
waiver has been met: (1)Whether the subject ofthe requested records concerns "the operations or activities ofthe government,"(2)Whether the disclosure is "likely to contribute"to an understanding ofgovernment operations or activities,(3)Whether disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute to the understanding ofthe public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding ofthe requester or a narrow segment ofinterested persons,(4)Whether the contribution to public understanding of government operations or activities will be "significant,"(5)Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure,and(6)Whether the magnitude ofany identified commercial interest to the requester is sufficiently large in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester.
Upon review ofthe subject matter of your request, and an evaluation ofthe six factors identified above, DHS has determined that it will conditionally grant your request for a fee waiver. The fee waiver determination will be based upon a sampling ofthe responsive documents received from the various DHS program offices as a result ofthe searches conducted in response to your FOIA request. DHS will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-commercial requesters, provide two hours ofsearch time and process the first 100 pages at no charge to you. Ifupon review ofthese documents,DHS determines that the disclosure ofthe information contained in those documents does not meet the factors permitting DHS to waive the fees,then DHS will at that time either deny your request for a fee waiver entirely, or will allow for a percentage reduction in the amount ofthe fees corresponding to the amount ofrelevant material found that meets the factors allowing for a fee waiver. In either case, DHS will promptly notify you of its final decision regarding your request for a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive records as required by applicable law.
In the event that your fee waiver is denied, and you determine that you still want the records, provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requestors. As anon-commercial requester you will be charged for any search time and duplication beyond the free two hours and 100 pages mentioned in the previous paragraph. You will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication and search time at the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. In the event that your fee waiver is denied, we will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. This office will contact you before accruing any additional fees.
Your request, as it pertains to this office, has been assigned reference number 2014-HQFO00671. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence with this office. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact this office at 1866-431-0486 or 202-343-1743.
Sincerely,
Linda Lasko FOIA Program Specialist

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 66 of 74
EX I It C

••

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 67 of 74

F~•eedom ofIraforrnation Acl Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Secw•ity 500 12`" St SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 2036

at~ie\Afin.
a~~~~

U S. Immigration

~~~ and Customs

August 08,2014o~~t9ND SEGJ, ~ Enforcement

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2014-ICFO-04325

Dear Ms. Werlin:

This acknowledges receipt ofyour Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),dated July 29,2014,and to your request for a waiver ofall assessable FOIA fees. Your request was received in this office on August 08,2014. Specifically, you requested disclosure ofrecords that contain, discuss,refer or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation ofINA 235(b)expedited removal since June 1,2014.

Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Per Section 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R. Part 5,ICE processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt ofyour request,the FOIA does permit a 10- day extension ofthis time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and wide-ranging search, DHS will invoke a 10-day extension for your request, as allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.

You have requested a fee waiver. The DHS FOIA Regulations at6 CFR § 5.11(k)(2)set forth six factors ICE must evaluate to determine whether the applicable legal standard for a fee waiver has been met: (1)Whether the subject ofthe requested records concerns"the operations or activities ofthe government,"(2)Whether the disclosure is "likely to contribute" to an understanding ofgovernment operations or activities,(3)Whether disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute to the understanding ofthe public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding ofthe requester or a narrow segment ofinterested persons,(4)Whether the contribution to public understanding of government operations or activities will be "significant,"(5)Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure, and(6) Whether the magnitude ofany identified commercial interest to the requester is sufficiently large in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester.

Upon review ofthe subject matter of your request,and an evaluation ofthe six factors identified above,ICE has determined that it will conditionally grant your request for a fee waiver. The fee

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 68 of 74
waiver determination will be based upon a sampling ofthe responsive documents received from the various ICE program offices as a result ofthe searches conducted in response to your FOIA request. ICE will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-commercial requesters, process the first 100 pages. Ifupon review ofthese documents,ICE determines that the disclosure ofthe information contained in those documents does not meet the factors permitting ICE to waive the fees, then ICE will at that time either deny your request for a fee waiver entirely, or will allow for a percentage reduction in the amount ofthe fees corresponding to the amount ofrelevant material found that meets the factors allowing for a fee waiver. In either case,ICE will promptly notify you of its final decision regarding your request for a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive records as required by applicable law.
In the event that your fee waiver is denied, and you determine that you still want the records, provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requestors. As anon-commercial requester you will be charged for any search time and duplication beyond the free two hours and 100 pages mentioned in the previous paragraph. You will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication and search time at the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. In the event that your fee waiver is denied, we will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. This office will contact you before accruing any additional fees.
ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located, they will be reviewed for determination of releasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-ICFO-04325. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. You may contact this office at(866)633-1182. Our mailing address is 500 12th Street, S.W.,Stop 5009, Washington,D.C.20536-5009.
Sincerely,
~~ ' bf
Catrina M.Pavlik-Keenan FOIA Officer

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 69 of 74

F~•eedom ofIsformation Act Office
CI.S. Department of Homeland Security X00 12`" St SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 2036

~.+,~ ~~ ~/~e'A\FAQ US.Immigration

s

and Customs

Enforcement
O~~t'~ND SE~'J4`

August 08,2014

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005

RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2014-ICFO-04325

Dear Ms. Werlin:

This acknowledges receipt ofyour Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),dated July 29,2014,and to your request for expedited treatment. Your request was received in this office on August 08,2014. Specifically, you requested disclosure of records that contain, discuss, refer or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures,recommendations,and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA 235(b)expedited removal since June 1,2014.

Your request for expedited treatment is hereby denied.

Under the DHS FOIA regulations,expedited processing ofa FOIA request is warranted ifthe request involves "circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information,"6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). Requesters seeking expedited processing must submit a statement explaining in detail the basis for the request, and that statement must be certified by the requester to be true and correct. 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(3).

Your request for expedited processing is denied because you do not qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1). You failed to demonstrate a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. Your letter was conclusory in nature and did not present any facts to justify a grant of expedited processing under the applicable standards.

Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request.Per Section 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R. Part 5,ICE processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt of your request,the FOIA does permit a 10- day extension ofthis time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and wide-ranging search,ICE will invoke a 10-day extension for your request, as

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 70 of 74
allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
Provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requesters. As anon-commercial requester, you will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication; the first 100 pages are free, as are the first two hours of search time, after which you will pay the per quarter-hour rate ($4.00 for clerical personnel, $7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. We will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. You will be contacted before any further fees are accrued.
If you deem the decision to deny expedited treatment of your request an adverse determination, you may exercise your appeal rights. Should you wish to do so, please send your appeal following the procedures outlined in the DHS regulations at 6 Code of Federal Regulations § 5.9 and a copy ofthis letter to:
U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement Office ofPrincipal Legal Advisor U.S. Department of Homeland Security Freedom ofInformation Office 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009 Washington, D.C. 20536-5009
Your appeal must be received within 60 days ofthe date ofthis letter. Your envelope and letter should be marked "FOIA Appeal." Copies ofthe FOIA and DHS regulations are available at www.dhs.Qov/foia.
ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located,they will be reviewed for determination ofreleasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-ICFO-04325. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. You may contact this office at(866)633-1182. Our mailing address is 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009, Washington, D.C. 20536-5009.
Sincerely,
~~~- of Catrina M.Pavlik-Keenan FOIA Officer

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 71 of 74
Ex i it D

••

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 72 of 74
From: CBPFOIACa>cbp.dhs.aov [mailto:CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Beth Werlin Subject: FOIA Request CBP-2014-038899 Submitted
This message is to confirm your request submission to the FOIAonline application: View Request. Request information is as follows:
• Tracking Number: CBP-2014-038899 • Requester Name:Beth Werlin • Date Submitted: 07/29/2014 • Request Status: Submitted • Description: See attached.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 73 of 74
~ •
Ex i it E

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 74 of 74

August 11,2Q14
Beth Werlin Americazx Immigration GounciE I331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

U.S:Deparknent ofhomeland Security National Records CenEer P.O.Sox 648010 f..ee's Summit,MO 64064-8010
µ c~4"r^^"~a, US Citizenship
~~u~xo ~ and Immigration n Services
NRC2414085478

Dear Beth Weriin:
We received your request dated July 29,2034,requesting to"disclosure of the following records[1] that were prepaxed,receivsd, transmitted, collected and/or rz~aintained by the U.S.Department of Homeland Security (DHS),the(3ffice of Civil Rights and CivilLiberties(CRCL),U.S.Customs and Border Protection(CBP),U.S.Imrrzigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),andiox U.S. Citizenship ar~d Immigration Services(USCIS)[2]that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices; procedures,recommendations,and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA§ 235(b)("expedited rennoval")since June 1,2014. Suchrecords shall include, but are not limi#ed to, all policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations and guidelines that address: * When to apply INA§ 235(b} and related reguEations to families with minor children. * Application of 8 C.F.R § 235.3(b}(2) to families with nninor children. * Detention of families with minor chitdren who are potentially subject to expedited removal," the portion of your request pertaining to USCIS. In.accordance.wtl~,.Depa~h~ent ofHomelaz►dSecurity Regulations(6C.F.R.§ 5.4(a)),USCTS uses a "cut-off'date to delineate the scope ofa F'OLA request by treating records created af#erthat date as not responsive to that request. Therefore, in determining which records are responsive to your request, we will only include records in the possession ofthis agency as ofAugust 11,2014,the date we began.the search for records. We respond to requests on a first-in, first-out basis and on a multi-hack system. 'i'our request has been placed in the coimplex track(Track 2). You tnay wish to narrow your requestto a specific document in order to be eligible for the faster track. To do so, please send a written request, identifying t}►e specific documentsought,to the address above. We wilt notify you ifyour request is placed in the simple track.
Your fee waiver request is ,granted.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 50
NRC2014085478 Page 3
Because ofunusual circumstances weznay not be able to process your request within the statutory time Iimit,tlzere~ore,it will be necessary to extend the time limit fox processing beyond the ten working day extension period due to the need to search for and coltect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request. You may wish to modify your request so that it can be processed within the statutory time limit or arrange an altez~raative tune period with owr office. Regardless ofany delay,your FOIA/PA request will be complied with as accurately as possible.
This office will be providing your records on a Compact Disc(CD)for use on your pexsonal computer. The CD is readable on alt computersthrough the nse ofAdobe Acrobat software. Aversion of Adobe Acrobat will be included on the CD. Your records can be viewed an your computer screen and can be printed onto paper. Only records 15 pages or more are eligible foc CD printing. To request your responsive records on paper, please include your control number and write to the above address Attention: FOIA~/PA Officer,or fax them to(816)350-5785.
You may check the status ofyour FOTA request online,at www.uscis.~ov. Click on "FOIA Request Status Check" located on the left side ofthe web page under "ether Services",and follow the instructions. Please be aware that the National Records Center no longer accepts FOIAlPA related questions directly by phone.
AI!FOJA/PA related requests,including address changes,z~aust be submitted in writing and be signed by the requester. Please include the control number listed above on all correspozzdence with thzs office. Requests nnay be mailed to the F4IA/PA Officer at the PO Box listed atthe top ofthe lettexklead, or sent by fax to{81b)350-5785. You znay also submitFOIA/PA related requests to our e-mail address at uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov.
Sincerely,
3iil A.Eggleston Director,FOTA Operations

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 2 of 50
EX I It F

••

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 3 of 50
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
August 21,2014
Associate General Counsel(General Law) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mailstop 0655 Washington, D.C. 20528
Re: Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal 2014-HQFO-00671
Dear FOIA Appeals Officer:
On July 29,2014,the American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submitted a request under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)for disclosure ofagency records that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of§ 235(b)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act,8 U.S.C.§ 1225(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014(Exhibit A). By letter dated August 8,2014,the Department ofHomeland Security denied our request for expedited processing(Exhibit B).Please consider this letter an appeal ofthe agency's denial ofexpedited processing. This appeal is timely filed within 60 days ofthe August 8,2014 denial.6 C.F.R.§ 5.9.
The agency asserted that the expedited processing request did not present "circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). The agency denied the request because the requestors did not"qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)."
Contrary to the agency's assessment, requestors meet both the statutory and regulatory criteria for expedited processing.l Requestors have demonstrated an "an urgency to inform the public
'Though the Department of Homeland Security has promulgated its own regulations addressing when expedited treatment is appropriate,the statutory criteria for expedited processing is not limited by these regulations. The FOIA statute directs agencies to allow "for expedited processing, not only `in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need,' but also `in other cases determined by the agency."'Al-Fayed v. CIA,254 F.3d 300,307 n.7(D.C. Cir. 2001)(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i))(emphasis in original). This provision allows an agency "`latitude to expand the criteria for expedited access' beyond cases of `compelling need."'Id.(quoting H.R. Rep.No. 104-795,at 26).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 4 of 50
about an actual or alleged federal government activity" by organizations "primarily engaged in disseminating information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). The D.C. Circuit has looked to several criteria when determining whether there is an "urgency to inform," and a resulting "compelling need":"(1)whether the request concerns a matter ofcurrent exigency to the American public;(2)whether the consequences ofdelaying a response would compromise a significant recognized interest; and(3)whether the request concerns federal government activity." Al-Fayed v. CIA,254 F.3d 300,310(D.C. Cir. 2001);see also Long v. Deptof Homeland Sec.,436 F. Supp.2d 38,42(D.D.C.2006)(applying the criteria to an expedited FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security).
This request plainly meets these criteria. First, there is "an urgency to inform the public" about this government activity. The government's policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process, including the application ofthis process to families with minor children apprehended or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico,have been repeatedly raised and discussed by members ofCongress,the news media,and the public in recent weeks. See, e.g., Julia Preston, As U.S. Speeds the Path to Deportation, Distress Fills New Family Detention Centers,New York Times,Aug.5,2014,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/us/seeking-to-stop-migrants-from-risking-trip-us-speedsthe-path-to-deportation-for-families.html? r=0(last visited Aug. 16,2014). Furthermore,early reports about expedited removal processing in Artesia raise serious due process concerns.2 Second, a delayed response would compromise individuals' due process interests in significant ways. Attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the population of individuals in that facility more effectively and to raise any potential challenges to those procedures in a timely manner.See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(B) (providing for challenge within 60 days ofimplementation ofchallenged directive, guideline or procedure). Moreover,a delay in public disclosure and discussion ofthese policies, procedures, and practices will likely allow problematic practices to persist longer than they otherwise would.
2 Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,Flood ofImmigrant Families at Border Revives Dorn~rant Detention P~ogNam,NBC News,July 25,2014,available at http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/imm igration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461(last visited July 30, 2014); Michael Oleaga, Immigrants'Rights Groups Discuss Conditions ofDetained Mothers and Children atArtesia Family Detention Center, Latin News,July 24,2014,available at http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140724/immigrants-rights-groups-artesia-familydetention-center.htm (last visited July 30,2014); Benjamin Goad, Groups Cite "Horrific" Conditions atImmigrant Detention Center, The Hill, July 24,2014,available at http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/213264-groups-cite-horrific-conditions-forimmigrant-detainees(last visited July 30,2014); Cindy Carcamo, Child's Detention Despite Citizenship Reveals ImmigNation Case Woes,Los Angeles Tiines, Aug. 14,2014,available at http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-citizen-detained-20140815-stor .I (lasted visited Aug. 16,2014);New Family Detention Centers HoldImmigrant Women and Children Without Bond as Asylum Claims Pend,Democracy Now,Aug. 14,2014,available at http://www.democracvnow.orQ/2014/8/14/new family detention centers hold immigrant(last visited Aug, 16,2014);
2

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 5 of 50
Third, this request obviously "concerns federal government activity" because both the proceedings and the detention facilities are federal.
We remind you that reporters and other media outlets are not the only entities primarily engaged in disseminating information. For example, a district court found the non-media entity Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to be "primarily engaged" in information dissemination. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales,404 F. Supp.2d 246,260(D.D.C.2005). The court reasoned that the "Conference's mission [was]to serve as the site ofrecord for relevant and up-to-the minute civil rights news and information" and that it "disseminat[ed] information regarding civil rights and voting rights to educate the public, promote effective civil rights laws, and ensure their enforcement by the Department of Justice." Id. Just as the Leadership Conference was focused on civil rights news,the American Immigration Council is a non-profit organization established to increase public understanding ofimmigration law and policy. The Council advocates for the fair and just administration ofour immigration laws, protects the legal rights of noncitizens, and educates the public about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants. The Council's policy department researches issues related to immigration and provides up-to-the-minute information to leaders on Capitol Hill, the media, and the general public. NIPNLG,another ofthe Requestors, is also engaged in disseminating information. For over forty years, the National Immigration Project has promoted justice and equality oftreatment in all areas ofimmigration law,the criminaljustice system,and social policies related to immigration. NIPNLG staff members often speak publicly and publish practice advisories and related written materials for the public and organizational members. Both the Council and NIPNLG make information provided through FOIA responses available on the organizations' websites, accessible by any member ofthe public. Finally, both the Council and NIPNLG have frequent contact with national print and news media and plan to share information from FOIA disclosures with interested media.
Separately,the request meets the regulatory criteria for expedited processing because denial of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i). The FOIA request seeks information about the expedited removal process as applied to individuals in Artesia. A key part ofthe expedited removal process is the "credible fear" interview for individuals who intend to seek asylum or who otherwise express a fear of persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). The credible fear interview is designed "to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture." 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d). Numerous news articles have raised questions about whether the women and children detained at Artesia are receiving fair credible fear interviews.3 Adding to the urgency, DHS currently is deporting individuals from Artesia.4 Thus, there is an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofthese women and children.
3 See,e.g., David McCumber and Susan Carroll,Immigrant Detention Centers Decried by Advocates as `Deportation Factories,'Houston Chronicle, Aug. 13,2014,available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Immigrant-detention-centers-decried-by-criticsas-5684471.php(last visited Aug. 16,2014); Melissa del Bosque,AtNew Detention Facility It's `Hurry Up and Deport'Central Americans,The Texas Observer,July 23,2014,available at http://www.texasobserver.org/new-facility-hurry-deport-central-americans/(last visited Aug. 18,

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 6 of 50
Thank you for your prompt attention to this appeal. If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please do not hesitate to contact Beth Werlin at bwerlin cr,immcouncil.or7 or 202-5077522.
Sincerely,
Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 507-7522 bwerlinnimmcouncil.oi•Q
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston,IVIA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext. 8 trina(a~nipnlg.org
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th F1. New York,NY 10004 oiadwat(c~aclu.org
2014); Jason Buch,Advocates Say Deportation May Disrupt Due Process,Houston Chronicle, July 19,2014,available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houstontexas/houston/article/jbuch-express-news-netTwitterjlbuch-5633398.ph~(last visited August 18, 2014). 4 See Russell Contreras and Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press, Aug. 2014, available at http://www.abgjournal.com/448772/news/ice-resumes-deportations-from-artesia-center.html (last visited Aug.20,2014).
4

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 7 of 50
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 8 of 50

E1.s. Departrr+ent of ~um~land Security ';~~
United Sia$@S
~'iQ85t C.yi1a1't~

Office of Administrative Law Judges,
Seatfle United States Coast Guard

91~ Second Avenue, Room 2609 Seattle, WA 98174 Staff Symbol: CG-00J
Phone: 20fr720-7109 fax: 2D5-220-71U8 Email: Heather,L:NiacCfintock@uscg.mil

5720 Uctober 20,2014

Beth Werli~ American Izz~aa~raigration Council 1331 G Sheet Wash neon,DC 200115
Trim Real~u~o National I ~n ~.ra~iran ~'roject ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street, Suite b02 Boston, MA 02108
C1rnar C.~atiwat American Civ31 Liberties Union F'nundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad StrEet, 18th door New York,NY 10404
RE:NHS F~1~,,APPEAL 2 14-~t2.A~-00092
Dear Ms. Werliz~, i!Is. Realuto,and Mr.Jadwat:
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 5,2014,in which you appealed several issues related to ~~OIA Request 2Q14-HQ1~0-{34571. This det~zm ration relates only to the portions cif your rec~u~st being processed by the Privacy C3#~"ice and tie (3ffice n~Civil ~Z.ights aid Civil Liberties(CRCT~);separate appeal determinations will be .rendered by I nnigration and Customs ;nforcernent(ICS), C1~12~I15.~11~3 ~2It~ ~223tT1I~I'B.~lOII Services{US~iS),aTad Customs and BnXder Protecting(CBP}.
Pursuant to a emor~dum ofagreern~nt, tl~e ~lnited Stags Coast Guard Office offhe CIaief Administrative L,aw 3udge is reviewing Lhe F~IA appeals for the l~e~partament of HoznEland Security ~ener~I Counsal's office. 'Therefore,the C3ffice afthe Chaef Administrative Law:Tudge wild be rendering die nf~icial appeal decision on behalfofthe Depar~e~z~ ofk~atneland Security.
1. Appeal of'Constructive Denial ofRequest
You allege the Agency has constructively denied your rec~ues# because at I~as not provided documents wit~ain the statutory time.frame.See S U.S.C. §§ 552Ea)(~i)(.t~.){i) aril(B)(i)• Your original request was sent on July 29,2014 and received by the Agency.~n July30, 2{114. The Privacy Office acknowledged your request ar~d assigned it a t~ack~ng number vn..August 8,2014.Its ~fthe date of your appeal,CK.GL had not yet.a~;icnn~vled~ed your request, however, Lhe record shows an acknowledgment and traek.in~ number were. .subsequently sent ~n ~ept~mber 11,2014.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 9 of 50

A request~~ teed not file an administrative appeal when claming ghat an agency has failed to eom~ly with.tl~e ti~~ limits; FOIA permits a requester tb treat this as constructive exhaustion ofadrninistr~t ve remedies.5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(C).Please note, however,tkaa~ an agency is generally allowed additional tune to praduce doeum~;nts iftie agency can tiernonstrate it has been conducting a diligent search butltas been.delayed due to exceptit~nal cixcur~stances.5 U.S.C.§ SS2(a)(6)(C}(t);see also CRE~v.FE~','711 F:3ci 18U, I ~3S (~?.C. Cox. 2013).
2: ~~stutement of'Kequestfr~r Expedited Processing
Your ~ppeai t~fthe ~1~ency's decision.to deny expedited prc~c~ssing has b~e~ considered under FUTA Appea12014-I~QAP-OOQBb. A letter explair~~ the ~~asans tk~e Agency's deter znaL~~n was upheld was sent to you under separate cover and is the final a~~ncy action regarding that appeal. NEy analysis cif'your restated request far expedited processing has nt~t changed: ya~r original request did nit comply with necessary xequiremen~ts under 6 C.F.R. ~ 5.5(d}(3} to expedite it pursuant to that section. Nor did your ar final request contain sufficient inf'armation to show expedited praeesszng was warranted ender 5 C.F.IZ. § 5.5(d)(1)(i)car absent a showing ofcompelIin~ n~;ed,as allowed by S U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(~'){z).'I"hus,fhe Agency properly denied it.
3, Appeal of~C"ondatrc~naZ Grant ofF'ee Waiver
You have a~pe~ed the Agency's decision t~ grant a conditional fee waiver,;pending; review o~ ar~y responsive documents produced during the Agency's search. you assert that afist fee waivex should be granted.
I amn upheld n.~; the Agency's deternai~ati~n. Thy A~enc~ is una~Ie to deter~vine whether ail six factors in the fee wa~vex analysis are satis~eri un~I the relevant documents have been located and re~riewed,therefore the Agency currently cannot matee a conclusive determination re~;ardi~g t1~.e fee waiver.Iftl~e Agency ultimately decides nc~t to waive fees, you may appeal at that time.
'This decision is the fi~►.al action ~fthe.Department of~-lo eland Security concerning;of ~OIA Ap}~e~l 2014-~C,~CJ-00092. While a comprehensive review of your appeal.was znacle, you may seek judiciat review oCthis decision pursuant to S U.S.C., t~'S52(a){4)(B) in United States district Courtfor either: 1}the district where you reside; 2}the district where the agency records are situated; ox 3)the District o~'Columbia.

Cody: Sent:

Sincerely,
k~eafher L. MacClir~tock Attaz~z~ey Advisor United States Coast Guard
FOIA U~fieer,BHS Privacy Office Via FedEx to the above addresses
2

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 10 of 50

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 11 of 50
From: Pineiro, Aeron [mailto:aei•on.pineiro cr,hq.dhs.~] Sent: Thursday,September 11,2014 2:10 PM To: Beth Werlin; Melissa Crow Subject: CRCL FOIA Request Acknowledgement
Good afternoon,
I apologize for delay in acknowledging your request.
This acknowledges receipt of your July 29,2014,Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to the Department ofHomeland Security(DHS)Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL) for records that were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures,recommendations,and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA § 235(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014. Your request was received in this office on July 30,2014.
A search within CRCL for responsive records is complete, and the records are being reviewed and processed. Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-CRFO-00039. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. Also,feel free to contact me anytime to discuss your request.
Regards,
Ms. Aeron J. Pineiro FOIA Officer Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties U.S. Department of Homeland Security (202)357-1218 (office) aeron.pineiro(a~hq.dhs.aov

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 12 of 50
EXHIBIT H

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 13 of 50

August 11,2014
Beth Werlin American Immigration CounciE I331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

_..:~
U.S.Deparhnent of~iomelat►d Security National Records CenEer P.O.Sox 648010 Lee's Summit,MQ 64464-8010
~ ~ ~4A/~ "! .0S Citizenship xo~~. and In~igration ~A~+~n s6~ Services
NRC2414085478

Dear Beth Werlin:
We received youz- request dated July 29,20I4,requesting to"disclosure of the following records[1] that were prepared,received, transmitted,collected azad/or tnaintaizaed by the U.S.Department of Homeland Security (DHS),the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S.Customs and Border Pxotection(CBP},U.S.Imnaigratzon and Customs Enforcement(ICE),and/ox U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS)j2]that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices; procedures,recommendations,and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA§ 235(b}("expedited rennoval")since 3une 1,2414. Suchrecords shall include, but are not limited to, all policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations and guidelines that address:
* When to apply II~I~A§ 235(b) and related xegutations to families with minor children. * Application of 8 C.F.R § 2353{b)(2) to families with minor children. * Detention of families with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited removat," the portion of your request pertaining to USCIS.
In.accordax~ce.wtl~,.De~.a~ment ofH...omelazxd_Security Regulations(6C.F.R.§ 5.4(a)),U5CIS uses a . "cut-offl'date to delineate the scope ofa FOIA.requesf by treating records created after that date as not responsive to that request. Therefore, in determining which records are responsive to your request, we will only include records in the possession ofthis agency as o£August 11,2014,the date we began.the search for records.
We respond to requests on a first-in,first-out basis and on a multi-track system. Your regaest has been placed in the cozxkplex track(Track 2). You may wish to zaarrow your requestto a specific documentin order #o be eligible for the faster track. To do so, please send a written request, identifying tb.e specific documentsought,tothe address above. We will notif}r you ifyour request is placed in the simple track.
Your fee waiver request is granted.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 14 of 50
NRC20140854'78 Page 3
Because ofunusual circumstances we znay not be able to process your request within the statutory time limit,ttzerefore,it will be necessary to extend the time limit for processing beyond the ten working day extension period due to the need to search for and coltect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request. You may wish to modify your request so that it can be processed within the statutory time linnit or anrazage an alternative tinge period with oux office. Regardless ofany delay,your FOiA/PA request will be complied with as accurately as possible.
This office will be providing your records on a Compact Disc{CD)for use on your personal computer. The CD is readable on all computersthrough the use ofAdobe Acrobat software. Aversion ofAdobe Acrobat will be included on the CD. Your records can be viewed on your computer screen and can 6e printed onto paper. Only records 15 pages ox more are eligible foc CD printing. To request your responsive records on paper, please include your control number and write to the above address Attention: FOIAIf'A Officer,or fax them to(816)350-5785.
You may check the status ofyour FOIA request online,at www.uscis.~ov. Click on "FOIA Request Status Check" located on the left side ofthe web page undex "Other Services",and follow the instructions. Please'be aware thattl~e National Records Center no longer accepts FOLA,/PA related questions directly by phone.
All PC~IAiPA related requests,including address changes,mustbe submitted in writing and be signed by the requester. Please include the control nunnber listed above on all correspondence with this office. Requests may be mailed to the FOIA/PA Officer at thePO Box listed at the top ofthe letterhead,or sent by fax to(816}350-57$5. You may also submitFOIA/PA related requests to oux e-mail address at uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov.
Sincerely,
~;.
Till A.Eggleston Director,F01A Operations

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 15 of 50
i

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS

Document 1-1

Filed 10/21/14 Page 16 of 50
U.S.Department ofHomeland Security HQ FOIAil'A Appeals 150 Space Center Loop,Suite 500 Lee's Summit,MO 64064-2139

q ~ 0/ ~4r A~~ US.Citizenship o~~ and Irnmigratian
Services
~~'~ND Sb~4

September 18,2014
Beth Wex~in American Irrazrxigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

APP20140013b5

Dear Ms. Werlin:
Re: NRC2014485478
You appealed the action ofthe National Records Center regarding your requestfor access to records pertaining to AIC requestfor documents relating to expedited removal since June 1,2014,dated August 4, 2014.
We consider your.appeal ofthe fee waiver requestto be moot,since U.S.Citizenship and Innnaigration Services graanted your original request for fee waiver.
With respect to your request for expedited treatment,on the basis ofinformation you provided, we have determined that expedited processing ofyour request is not warranted. In. your Missions and Goals Statement, you establish that the ACLU works"daily in courts,legislatures and connmunities to defend and preserve the individual rights and Liberties that the Constitution and laws ofthe United States guarantee everyone in this country",and that"the ACLU also works to extend rights to segments ofour population that have traditionally been denied their rights,including people ofcolor; woz~aen; lesbians, gay men,bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners;and people with disabili#ies." As such,it appears that disseminating information is a secondary or lesser mission ofthe ACLU. Standards established by the Deparhnent ofHomeland Security xegazding expedited processing are very strict(6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)) and pernnit expedited treatment only when the requester demonstrates that:
a. circumstances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual;
b. an urgency to inform the public about an actual or allebed federal government activity,ifmade by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.

www.usczs.gov

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 17 of 50
APP201400I365 Page 2
Ifyon are dissatisfied with our action on your appeal,you may seekjudicial review in accordance with 5 U.S.C.§ 552{a)(4}(B).The Office ofGovernment Infoz~mation Services{OGIS)also mediates disputes between FOIA requesters az~d Federat agencies as anon-exclusive alternative to Litigation. The OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made underthe Privacy Act of 1974.Ifyou wish to contact OGIS; you may email them at o is o nara.gov ox call 1-877-684-6448.
Sincerely,
'~
Alan D.Hughes,Associate Counsel Commercial and Administrative Law Division Deparhnent ofHomeland Secuzity Citizenship and Immigration Services

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 18 of 50
EXHIBIT J

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 19 of 50

Freedom ofInfor~nadon Act Office
U.5. Department of Homeland Security X00 12`h St SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 2036

~/ F"y'A _~FH

J~ ~~n

y o

.~~

August 08~ ZOI4 ~~t9No SEG~

US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2014-ICFO-04325

Dear Ms. Werlin:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),dated July 29,2014,and to your request for a waiver ofall assessable FOIA fees. Your request was received in this office on August 08,2014. Specifically, you requested disclosure ofrecords that contain, discuss,refer or relate to policies, regulations, practices,procedures,recommendations,and guidelines with respect to the implementation ofINA 235(b)expedited removal since June 1,2014.

Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Per Section 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R. Part 5,ICE processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt of your request,the FOIA does permit a 10- day extension ofthis time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and wide-ranging search, DHS will invoke a 10-day extension for your request, as allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.

You have requested a fee waiver. The DHS FOIA Regulations at6 CFR § 5.11(k)(2)set forth six factors ICE must evaluate to determine whether the applicable legal standard for a fee waiver has been met: (1)Whether the subject ofthe requested records concerns "the operations or activities ofthe government,"(2)Whether the disclosure is "likely to contribute"to an understanding ofgovernment operations or activities,(3)Whether disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute to the understanding ofthe public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding ofthe requester or a narrow segment ofinterested persons,(4)Whether the contribution to public understanding of government operations or activities will be "significant,"(5)Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure, and(6)Whether the magnitude ofany identified commercial interest to the requester is sufficiently large in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester.

Upon review ofthe subject matter of your request,and an evaluation ofthe six factors identified above,ICE has determined that it will conditionally grant your request for a fee waiver. The fee

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 20 of 50
waiver determination will be based upon a sampling ofthe responsive documents received from the various ICE program offices as a result ofthe searches conducted in response to your FOIA request. ICE will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-commercial requesters, process the first 100 pages. If upon review ofthese documents,ICE determines that the disclosure ofthe information contained in those documents does not meet the factors permitting ICE to waive the fees,then ICE will at that time either deny your request for a fee waiver entirely, or will allow for a percentage reduction in the amount ofthe fees corresponding to the amount ofrelevant material found that meets the factors allowing for a fee waiver. In either case,ICE will promptly notify you ofits final decision regarding your request for a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive records as required by applicable law.
In the event that your fee waiver is denied, and you determine that you still want the records, provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requestors. As anon-commercial requester you will be charged for any search time and duplication beyond the free two hours and 100 pages mentioned in the previous paragraph. You will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication and search time at the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. In the event that your fee waiver is denied, we will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. This office will contact you before accruing any additional fees.
ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located,they will be reviewed for determination ofreleasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-ICFO-04325.Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. You may contact this office at(866)633-1182. Our mailing address is 500 12th Street, S.W.,Stop 5009, Washington,D.C.20536-5009.
Sincerely,
~Gt/1i1- o~''
Catrina M.Pavlik-Keenan FOIA Officer

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 21 of 50

Freedo~r: ofbformation Act Office

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12`h St SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 2036

,'^\F,
~.~ ~~ ~F'Qp L
~Fr9Nn StiGJ~`
August 08,2014

U S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2014-ICFO-04325

Dear Ms. Werlin:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),dated July 29,2014,and to your request for expedited treatment. Your request was received in this office on August 08,2014. Specifically, you requested disclosure of records that contain, discuss, refer or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA 235(b)expedited removal since June 1,201.4.

Your request for expedited treatment is hereby denied.

Under the DHS FOIA regulations, expedited processing ofa FOIA request is warranted ifthe request involves"circumstances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual,"6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). Requesters seeking expedited processing must submit a statement explaining in detail the basis for the request, and that statement must be certified by the requester to be true and correct. 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(3).

Your request for expedited processing is denied because you do not qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1). You failed to demonstrate a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. Your letter was conclusory in nature and did not present any facts to justify a grant of expedited processing under the applicable standards.

Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Per Section 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R.Part 5,ICE processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt ofyour request,the FOIA does permit a 10- day extension ofthis time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and wide-ranging search,ICE will invoke a 10-day extension for your request,as

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 22 of 50
allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
Provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requesters. As anon-commercial requester, you will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication; the first 100 pages are free, as are the first two hours of search time, after which you will pay the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. We will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. You will be contacted before any further fees are accrued.
If you deem the decision to deny expedited treatment of your request an adverse determination, you may exercise your appeal rights. Should you wish to do so, please send your appeal following the procedures outlined in the DHS regulations at 6 Code of Federal Regulations § 5.9 and a copy ofthis letter to:
U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement Office ofPrincipal Legal Advisor U.S. Department of Homeland Security Freedom of Information Office 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009 Washington, D.C. 20536-5009
Your appeal must be received within 60 days ofthe date ofthis letter. Your envelope and letter should be marked "FOIA Appeal." Copies ofthe FOIA and DHS regulations are available at www.dhs. ova /foia.
ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located,they will be reviewed for determination ofreleasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-ICFO-04325.Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. You may contact this office at(866)633-1182. Our mailing address is 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009, Washington, D.C. 20536-5009.
Sincerely,
~"
Catrina M.Pavlik-Keenan FOIA Officer

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 23 of 50
EXHIBIT K

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 24 of 50
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION .~.~ COUNCIL
September 19,2014
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ofPrincipal Legal Advisor U.S. Department of Homeland Security Freedom of Information Act Office 500 12th Street SW,Stop 5009 Washington, D.C. 20536-5009
Re: Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal ICE - 2014-ICFO-04325
Dear FOIA Appeals Officer:
On July 29,2014,the American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submitted a request under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)for disclosure ofagency records that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of§ 235(b)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act,8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014(Exhibit A).
By letters dated August 8,2014,U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement("ICE")denied our request for expedited processing, invoked the statutory 10-day extension for responding to our request,and conditionally granted our fee waiver request(Exhibit B).
Please consider this letter an appeal ofthe agency's denial ofexpedited processing.' This appeal is timely filed within 60 days ofthe August 8,2014 denial.6 C.F.R. § 5.9.
The agency asserted that the expedited processing request did not present "circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual,"6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information," 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). The agency denied the request because the requestors did not"qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)."
Contrary to the agency's assessment, requestors meet both the statutory and regulatory criteria for expedited processing.2 Requestors have demonstrated an "an urgency to inform the public
~ This is the second administrative appeal submitted to ICE in conjunction with this FOIA request. On September 5,2014,Requestors submitted an administrative appeal ofthe agency's constructive denial ofthe FOIA request.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 25 of 50
about an actual or alleged federal government activity" by organizations "primarily engaged in disseminating information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). The D.C. Circuit has looked to several criteria when determining whether there is an "urgency to inform," and a resulting "compelling need":"(1)whether the request concerns a matter ofcurrent exigency to the American public;(2)whether the consequences ofdelaying a response would compromise a significant recognized interest; and(3)whether the request concerns federal government activity." Al-Fayed v. CIA,254 F.3d 300,310(D.C. Cir. 2001);see also Long v. Dept of Homeland Sec.,436 F. Supp.2d 38,42(D.D.C.2006)(applying the criteria to an expedited FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security)..
This request plainly meets these criteria. First, there is "an urgency to inform the public" about this government activity. The government's policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process, including the application ofthis process to families with minor children apprehended or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, have been repeatedly raised and discussed by members ofCongress,the news media,and the public in recent weeks. See,e.g., Julia Preston,As U.S. Speeds the Path to Deportation, Distress Fills New Family Detention Centers,New York Times,Aug.5,2014,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/us/seeking-to-stop-migrants-from-risking-trip-us-speedsthe-path-to-deportation-for-families.html?_r=0(last visited Sep. 18,2014). Furthermore,early reports about expedited removal processing in Artesia raise serious due process concerns.3
Z Though the Department of Homeland Security has promulgated its own regulations addressing when expedited treatment is appropriate, the statutory criteria for expedited processing is not limited by these regulations. The FOIA statute directs agencies to allow "for expedited processing, not only `in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need,' but also `in other cases determined by the agency."'Al-Fayed v. CIA,254 F.3d 300,307 n.7(D.C. Cir.2001)(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i))(emphasis in original). This provision allows an agency "`latitude to expand the criteria for expedited access' beyond cases of `compelling need."'Id.(quoting H.R. Rep.No. 104-795,at 26). 3 Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,Flood ofImmigrant Families at Border Revives Dormant Detention Program,NBC News,July 25,2014,available at http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461(last visited Sep. 18, 2014); Michael Oleaga, Immigrants'Rights Groups Discuss Conditions ofDetained Mothers and Children atArtesia Family Detention Center, Latin News,July 24,2014,available at http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140724/immigrants-rights-groups-artesia-familydetention-center.htm (last visited Sep. 18,2014); Benjamin Goad,Groups Cite "Horrific" Conditions at bnmigrant Detention Center,The Hill,July 24,2014,available at http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/213264-groups-cite-horrific-conditions-forimmigrant-detainees(last visited Sep. 18,2014); Cindy Carcamo, Child's Detention Despite Citizenship Reveals Immigration Case Woes,Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14,2014,available at http://www.lati~nes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-citizen-detained-20140815-stor, .1 (lasted visited Sep. 18,2014);New Family Detention Centers HoldImmigrant Women and ChildNen Without Bond as Asylum Claims Pend,Democracy Now,Aug. 14,2014,available at http://www.democracymow.orQ/2014/8/14/new_farm(y_detention_ce~~ters_hold_immi~rant (last visited Sep. 18,2014).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 26 of 50
Second, a delayed response would compromise individuals' due process interests in significant ways. Attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the population of individuals in that facility more effectively and to raise challenges to those procedures in a timely manner.See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(B)(providing for challenge within 60 days ofimplementation ofchallenged directive, guideline or procedure). Moreover,a delay in public disclosure and discussion ofthese policies, procedures, and practices will likely allow problematic practices to persist longer than they otherwise would. Third,this request obviously "concerns federal government activity" because both the proceedings and the detention facilities are federal.
We remind you that reporters and other media outlets are not the only entities primarily engaged in disseminating information. For example, a district court found the non-media entity Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to be "primarily engaged" in information dissemination. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales,404 F. Supp.2d 246,260(D.D.C.2005). The court reasoned that the "Conference's mission [was]to serve as the site ofrecord for relevant and up-to-the minute civil rights news and information" and that it "disseminat[ed] information regarding civil rights and voting rights to educate the public, promote effective civil rights laws, and ensure their enforcement by the Department of Justice." Id. Just as the Leadership Conference was focused on civil rights news,the American Immigration Council is a non-profit organization established to increase public understanding ofimmigration law and policy. The Council advocates for the fair and just administration of our immigration laws, protects the legal rights of noncitizens, and educates the public about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants. The Council's policy department researches issues related to immigration and provides up-to-the-minute information to leaders on Capitol Hill, the media, and the general public. NIPNLG,another ofthe Requestors, is also engaged in disseminating information. For over forty years,the National Immigration Project has promoted justice and equality oftreatment in all areas ofimmigration law,the criminaljustice system,and social policies related to immigration. NIPNLG staff members often speak publicly and publish practice advisories and related written materials for the public and organizational members. Both the Council and NIPNLG make information provided through FOIA responses available on the organizations' websites,accessible by any member ofthe public. Finally, both the Council and NIPNLG have frequent contact with national print and news media and plan to share information from FOIA disclosures with interested media.
Separately,the request meets the regulatory criteria for expedited processing because denial of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual.See 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(i). The FOIA request seeks information about the expedited removal process as applied to individuals in Artesia. A key part ofthe expedited removal process is the "credible fear" interview for individuals who intend to seek asylum or who otherwise express a fear of persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4); 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). The credible fear interview is designed "to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture." 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d). Numerous news articles have raised questions about whether the women and children detained at Artesia are receiving fair credible fear
3

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 27 of 50
interviews.4 Adding to the urgency, DHS currently is deporting individuals from Artesia.s Thus, there is an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofthese women and children.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this appeal. If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please do not hesitate to contact Beth Werlin at bwerlin(a~,immcouncil.or~ or 202-5077522.
Sincerely,
Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202)507-7522 bwerlin a,immcouncil.oi•~
Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext.8 trina(a~nipnl~.ora
Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18"t Fl. New York,NY 10004 ojadwatt , aclu.oi•~
4 See,e.g., David McCumber and Susan Carroll,Immigrant Detention Centers Decried by Advocates as `Deportation Factories,'Houston Chronicle, Aug. 13,2014,available at http://www.houstonchron icle.com/news/article/lmmigrant-detention-centers-decried-bv-criticsas-5684471.ph~(last visited Sep. 18,2014); Melissa del Bosque,At New Detention Facility It's `HuNry Up and Deport'Central Americans,The Texas Observer, July 23,2014,available at http://www.texasobserver.org/new-facility-hurry-deport-central-americans/(last visited Sep. 18, 2014); Jason Buch,Advocates Say Deportation May Disrupt Due Process, Houston Chronicle, July 19,2014,available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houstontexas/houston/article/ibuch-express-news-netTwitter;ilbuch-5633398.ph~(last visited Sep. 18, 2014). 5 See Russell Contreras and Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press, Aug. 2014, available at http://www.abgjournal.com/448772/news/ice-resumes-deportations-from-artesia-center.htm 1 (last visited Sep. 18, 2014).
4

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 28 of 50
Ex i it A

•

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 29 of 50
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION .~~~ COUNCIL
July 29,2014
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
U.S. Department of Homeland Security FOIA/PA The Privacy Office 245 Murray Lane SW STOP-0655 Washington, DC 20528-0655 foia(a~hq.dhs.gov
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington,DC 20528 CRCLndhs.,..ov
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Freedom ofInformation Act Office 500 12th Street,SW,Stop 5009 Washington,DC 20536-5009 ICE-FOIAndhs.gov
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Records Center,FOIA/PA Office P. O. Box 648010 Lee's Summit, MO 64064-8010 uscis.foiandhs.Qov
U.S. Customs and Border Protection FOIA Officer 90 K Street NE,9th Floor Washington,DC 20229-1181 FOIA Officer/Public Liaison: Sabrina Burroughs C13PFOIAncbp.dhs.gov

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 30 of 50

Re: Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)Request
Dear FOIA Officers:
The American Immigration Council("Immigration Council"),the National Immigration Project ofthe National Lawyers Guild("NIPNLG"),and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project("ACLU-IRP")("Requestors")submit this letter as a request for information under the Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA),5 U.S.C. § 552,et seq. We ask that this request be expedited pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(6)(E)and that we be granted a fee waiver.
Request for Information
The Requestors request disclosure ofthe following recordsl that were prepared,received, transmitted,collected and/or maintained by the U.S.Department ofHomeland Security(DHS), the Office ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties(CRCL),U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS)2 that contain, discuss, refer, or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA § 235(b)("expedited removal")since June 1,2014. Such records shall include, but are not limited to, all policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations and guidelines that address:
• When to apply INA § 235(b)and related regulations to families with minor children.

~

The term "records" as used herein includes all records or communications preserved in

electronic or written form, including but not limited to correspondence, regulations, directives,

documents, data, videotapes,audiotapes,e-mails,faxes,files, guidance, guidelines,standards,

evaluations, instructions, analyses, memoranda,agreements,notes,orders, policies, procedures,

protocols,reports, rules, manuals, technical specifications,training materials or studies,

including records kept in written form,or electronic format on computers and/or other electronic

storage devices, electronic communications and/or videotapes, as well as any reproductions

thereofthat differ in any way from any other reproduction,such as copies containing marginal

notations.

Z

The term "CBP" means CBP Headquarters offices, including any divisions, subdivisions

or sections therein; CBP field operations offices, including any divisions, subdivisions or

sections therein; CBP offices at ports of entry, including any divisions, subdivisions or sections

therein; and/or any other CBP organizational structures. The term "ICE" means ICE

Headquarters offices(including but not limited to the Office ofthe Assistant Secretary(OAS),

Enforcement and Removal Operations(ERO),Homeland Security Investigations(HIS),

Management and Administration, Office ofthe Principal Legal Advisor(OPLA),and the Office

ofDetention Policy and Planning(ODPP),including any divisions, subdivisions or sections

therein); ICE field offices, including any divisions, subdivisions or sections therein; local Offices

of Chief Counsel; and any other ICE organizational structure. The term "USICIS" means USCIS

Headquarters offices, regional offices, district offices, field offices and/or any other

organizational structure.

2

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 31 of 50
• Application of8 C.F.R.§ 235.3(b)(2)to families with minor children.
• Detention offamilies with minor children who are potentially subject to expedited removal.
• When ICE or CBP officers must refer individuals for credible fear interviews, including individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Whether individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico, will have credible fear interviews.
• Resources that are available or needed to conduct expedited removal, including the credible fear interviews, for individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico,including the extent and configuration ofphysical space,communications resources, child care, interpretation, training, and staff.
• Procedures for conducting credible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Timing and/or scheduling ofcredible fear interviews for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Standards applicable in credible fear determinations, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Creation ofa written or videotaped record during the expedited removal process, including the credible fear process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• The review process for credible fear determinations for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia,New Mexico,including submission ofthe case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and/or notice of a hearing before an immigration judge.
• Access to counsel,including advising individuals oftheir right to counsel, during the expedited removal process, including during the credible fear interview, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Access to interpreters during the expedited removal process, including with respect to individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia, New Mexico.
• Access to interpreters for other purposes for individuals apprehended and/or detained by DHS in Artesia,New Mexico.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 32 of 50
• Public, media, and/or NGO access to the facility in Artesia, New Mexico at which DHS is detaining families with minor children,and to proceedings(including credible fear review proceedings and removal proceedings)at the facility.
• Access to individuals detained in Artesia, New Mexico, including access to counsel, procedures to receive and/or send mail, access to phones and other communications equipment, and/or access to medical attention.
• Issuance ofexpedited removal orders(I-860)to individuals apprehended and/or detained in Artesia, New Mexico.
• The physical removal of individuals detained.in Artesia, New Mexico, including any processes or procedures leading to their removal.
• Handbooks,rules, manuals,or other written documents(excluding those that pertain specifically to an individual's case)provided to individuals detained in Artesia,New Mexico or to staff at the detention center.
Request for Expedited Processing
Expedited processing is warranted because there is "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity" by organizations "primarily engaged in disseminating information." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). This request implicates a matter of urgent public concern,namely,government policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process in Artesia, New Mexico.
There is "an urgency to inform the public" about this government activity because early reports about expedited removal processing and detention conditions raise serious due process concerns.3 Further, attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures, and practices to serve the population ofindividuals in that facility more effectively and raise any potential challenges to those procedures in a timely manner. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1252(e)(3)(B)(expedited removal process may be challenged within 60 days of implementation ofchallenged directive, guideline or procedure). Accordingly,the failure to expedite processing ofthis request would prejudice Requestors' right to seekjudicial review by this statutory deadline.
Request for Waiver of Fees
See,e.g., Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,Flood ofImmigrant Families at Border Revives Dormant Detention Program, NBC News,available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/flood-immigrant-families-borderrevives-dormant-detention-program-n164461(last visited July 28,2014); Michael Oleaga, Immigrants'RightsGroupsDiscussConditionsofDetainedMothersandChildren atArtesiaFamilyDetention Center,Latin News, available crt:http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17895/20140724/immigrantsrights-groups-artesia-family-detention-center.htm (last visited July 28,2014).
4

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 33 of 50

Requestors ask that all fees associated with this FOIA request be waived. We are entitled to a waiver ofall costs because disclosure ofthe information is "...likely to contribute significantly to public understanding ofthe operations or activities ofthe government and is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(records furnished without charge or at a reduced rate ifthe information is in the public interest, and disclosure is not in commercial interest ofinstitution). In addition,the Requestors have the ability to widely disseminate the requested information. See Judicial Watch v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309(D.C. Cir. 2003)(finding a fee waiver appropriate when the requester explained, in detailed and non-conclusory terms, how and to whom it would disseminate the information it received).
A. Disclosure ofthe Information Is in the Public Interest
Disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities related to expedited removal processing for families. Such information is ofgreat public interest given the thousands ofindividuals who may be subject to expedited removal each year.4
Requestors have the capacity and intent to disseminate widely the requested information to the public.
The Immigration Council is a non-profit organization established to increase public understanding ofimmigration law and policy,advocate for the fair and just administration ofour immigration laws, protect the legal rights of noncitizens, and educate the public about the enduring contributions of America's immigrants. Our policy department researches issues related to immigration, and regularly provides information to leaders on Capitol Hill, the media, and the general public. Our legal department works with other immigrants' rights organizations and immigration attorneys across the United States to advance the fair administration of immigration laws,including those relating to the removal process.
NIPNLG is a national non-profit that provides technical and litigation support to immigrant communities, legal practitioners, and all advocates seeking to advance the rights of noncitizens. The NIPNLG provides training to the bar and the bench on immigration consequences of criminal conduct,and is the author offour treatises on immigration law published by Thomson Reuters. In addition, NIPNLG staff present, and regularly publish practice advisories, on immigration law topics, which are disseminated to its members as well as to a large public audience through its website, www.nationalimmigrationproject.org.
The ACLU is a nationwide, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. It is the largest civil liberties organization in the

4

In FY 2013,ICE deported about 101,000 people through the expedited removal process.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,FY2013ICEImmigration Removals,December

2013,p. 4,available at:https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/2013-ice-

immigration-removals.pdf(last visited July 28,2014).

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 34 of 50
country, with offices in the fifty states and over 500,000 members. It publishes newsletters, news briefings, right-to-know handbooks, and other materials that are widely disseminated to the public. These materials are made available to everyone—including tax-exempt organizations, non-profit groups, and law students and law faculty—for either no cost or for a nominal fee through its public education department.
The ACLU also disseminates information through its high-traffic website, http://www.aclu.org. The website provides in-depth information on a range of civil liberties issues, addresses civil liberties issues that are currently in the news, and contains hundreds of documents relating to the ACLU's work. The website specifically features information obtained through FOIA. See, e.g., http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.htm l; http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/index.html. The ACLU also publishes an electronic newsletter distributed to subscribers via email; airs regular podcasts; maintains a blog, http://blog.aclu.org; releases information via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter; and produces a television series on civil liberties issues.
One or more ofthe Requestors will post the information obtained through this FOIA on its publicly accessible website. The Requestors' websites collectively receive millions ofpage views per year—for example,the Immigration Council's website has received 1.2 million page views this year and likely will receive 2 million by the end ofthe year. One or more ofthe Requestors also will publish a summary ofthe information received and will disseminate that summary. Finally,the Requestors have regular contact with national print and news media and plan to share information gleaned from FOIA disclosures with interested media.
B. Disclosure ofthe Information Is NotPrimarily in the CommercialInterest ofthe Requester
The Immigration Council, ACLU,and NIPNLG are not-for-profit organizations. The Requestors seek the requested information for the purpose ofdisseminating it to members ofthe public who have access to our public websites and other free publications, and not for the purpose of commercial gain.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 35 of 50
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us by telephone or email.
Sincerely,
Beth Werlin Deputy Director, Legal Action Center American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 507-7522 bwerlin(cr~,immcouncil.ora Trina Realmuto National Immigration Project
ofthe National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 (617)227-9727 ext. 8 tcina(a~,nipnl~.org Omar C. Jadwat American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. New York,NY 10004 oiadwat(a~aclu.or~
7

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 36 of 50

Ex

i ~

•
it

6

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 37 of 50
Fr~eedaz: ofInformation Act Offrce
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12°i St SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 20536
,5~ .~~ O' F~e\ A Fq, US.Immigration and Customs
August 08,2014~~~' `9ND SE`J, ~~ Enforcement
Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005
RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2014-ICFO-04325
Dear Ms. Werlin:
This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),dated July 29,2014,and to your request for a waiver ofall assessable FOIA fees. Your request was received in this office on August 08,2014. Specifically, you requested disclosure ofrecords that contain, discuss, refer or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation ofINA 235(b)expedited removal since June 1,2014.
Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request.Per Section 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R. Part 5,ICE processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt of your request,the FOIA does permit a 10- day extension ofthis time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and wide-ranging search, DHS will invoke a 10-day extension for your request, as allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
You have requested a fee waiver. The DHS FOIA Regulations at 6 CFR § 5.11(k)(2) set forth six factors ICE must evaluate to determine whether the applicable legal standard for a fee waiver has been met: (1)Whether the subject ofthe requested records concerns "the operations or activities ofthe government,"(2)Whether the disclosure is "likely to contribute" to an understanding ofgovernment operations or activities,(3)Whether disclosure ofthe requested information will contribute to the understanding ofthe public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding ofthe requester or a narrow segment ofinterested persons,(4)Whether the contribution to public understanding of government operations or activities will be "significant,"(5)Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure,and(6)Whether the magnitude ofany identified commercial interest to the requester is sufficiently large in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester.
Upon review ofthe subject matter of your request,and an evaluation ofthe six factors identified above,ICE has determined that it will conditionally grant your request for a fee waiver. The fee

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 38 of 50
waiver determination will be based upon a sampling ofthe responsive documents received from the various ICE program offices as a result ofthe searches conducted in response to your FOIA request. ICE will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-commercial requesters, process the first 100 pages. If upon review ofthese documents,ICE determines that the disclosure ofthe information contained in those documents does not meet the factors permitting ICE to waive the fees, then ICE will at that time either deny your request for a fee waiver entirely, or will allow for a percentage reduction in the amount ofthe fees corresponding to the amount ofrelevant material found that meets the factors allowing for a fee waiver. In either case,ICE will promptly notify you of its final decision regarding your request for a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive records as required by applicable law.
In the event that your fee waiver is denied, and you determine that you still want the records, provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requestors. As anon-commercial requester you will be charged for any search time and duplication beyond the free two hours and 100 pages mentioned in the previous paragraph. You will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication and search time at the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. In the event that your fee waiver is denied, we will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. This office will contact you before accruing any additional fees.
ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. Ifany responsive records are located,they will be reviewed for determination ofreleasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-ICFO-04325. Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. You may contact this office at(866)633-1182. Our mailing address is 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009, Washington, D.C. 20536-5009.
Sincerely,
~lt~-- or
Catrina M.Pavlik-Keenan FOIA Officer

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 39 of 50

Freedom ofInformation Ac!Offrce
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12`" St SW,Stop 5009 Washington, DC 20536

~,F,,4,AR~E,~,

~5.

~ To

x

~

1

O~~t'1ND 56GJQ.

US. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement

August 08,2014

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street NW Washington,DC 20005

RE: ICE FOIA Case Number 2014-ICFO-04325

Dear Ms. Werlin:

This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA)request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),dated July 29,2014,and to your request for expedited treatment. Your request was received in this office on August 08,2014. Specifically, you requested disclosure of records that contain, discuss, refer or relate to policies, regulations, practices, procedures, recommendations, and guidelines with respect to the implementation of INA 235(b)expedited removal since June 1,2014.

Your request for expedited treatment is hereby denied.

Under the DHS FOIA regulations,expedited processing ofa FOIA request is warranted ifthe request involves "circumstances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety ofan individual,"6 C.F.R.§ 5.5(d)(1)(i), or "an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information,"6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1)(ii). Requesters seeking expedited processing must submit a statement explaining in detail the basis for the request, and that statement must be certified by the requester to be true and correct. 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(3).

Your request for expedited processing is denied because you do not qualify for either category under 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d)(1). You failed to demonstrate a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. Your letter was conclusory in nature and did not present any facts tojustify a grant ofexpedited processing under the applicable standards.

Due to the increasing number ofFOIA requests received by this office, we may encounter some delay in processing your request. Per Section 5.5(a)ofthe DHS FOIA regulations,6 C.F.R.Part 5,ICE processes FOIA requests according to their order ofreceipt. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days ofreceipt of your request,the FOIA does permit a 10- day extension ofthis time period. As your request seeks numerous documents that will necessitate a thorough and wide-ranging search,ICE will invoke a 10-day extension for your request,as

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 40 of 50
allowed by Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). If you care to narrow the scope of your request, please contact our office. We will make every effort to comply with your request in a timely manner.
Provisions ofthe FOIA allow us to recover part ofthe cost ofcomplying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS Interim FOIA regulations as they apply to non-commercial requesters. As anon-commercial requester, you will be charged 10 cents per page for duplication;the first 100 pages are free, as are the first two hours ofsearch time, after which you will pay the per quarter-hour rate($4.00 for clerical personnel,$7.00 for professional personnel,$10.25 for managerial personnel)ofthe searcher. We will construe the submission of your request as an agreement to pay up to $25.00. You will be contacted before any further fees are accrued.
If you deem the decision to deny expedited treatment of your request an adverse determination, you may exercise your appeal rights. Should you wish to do so, please send your appeal following the procedures outlined in the DHS regulations at 6 Code of Federal Regulations § 5.9 and a copy ofthis letter to:
U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement Office ofPrincipal Legal Advisor U.S. Department ofHomeland Security Freedom of Information Office 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009 Washington, D.C. 20536-5009
Your appeal must be received within 60 days ofthe date ofthis letter. Your envelope and letter should be marked "FOIA Appeal." Copies ofthe FOIA and DHS regulations are available at www.dhs.~rov/foia.
ICE has queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records. If any responsive records are located,they will be reviewed for determination ofreleasability. Please be assured that one ofthe processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.
Your request has been assigned reference number 2014-ICFO-04325.Please refer to this identifier in any future correspondence. You may contact this office at(866)633-1182. Our mailing address is 500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009, Washington, D.C. 20536-5009.
Sincerely,
~Gc~l- t"or
Catrina M.Pavlik-Keenan FOIA Officer

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 41 of 50

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 42 of 50

October 7;2014

U.S. Dcpartmcnt ofiiomeland Security 50012'S~ SW;STOP SU09 Washington,OC 20536-5009
°~^~ U.S.Immigration '' and Customs
~~F~,`~ Enforcement

Beth Werlin American T~nrnigration Council 133i G St.r.e:et.,.,.NW Washington;DC'2000S

,,....:.....:...,:....,,.,. ;.:...... .

RE:2014-ICAP-00020,201,4-ICF(J-Q4325

Dear Ms. VVerlin:
This is in response to your let#er dated September 5,2414,analreceived on September 9,2014, appealing the adverse determination ofyour Freedom ofInformation Act(FOIA}request by U.S. Immigration & Custorrks Enforcement(ICE)requesting the disclosure ofagency records that contain, discuss,refer,ar relate to policies,regulations,practices,procedures,recommendations and guidelines with respect to the implementation of§ 235(b)ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act,8 U.S.C.§ 1225(6)("expedited removal")since 3une 1,2fl14. You have appealed the denial of expedited treatment,the denial ofa full fee waiver;and the constructive denial ofyour ~OIA request.

E~rpedited Treatment
Yau have appealed the denial ofexpedited treatment on your FOTA request. As wasexplained in a letter dated August8,2014,the ICE FOIA Office denied your request for expedited processing because expedited processing ofa FOIA request is warranted anIy"ifthe request involves `circurnsfances in which the lack ofexpedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminentthreat#o the Iife or physieai safety ofan individual,'.6C.F.R.§ 5.5(d){1)(i),or `an urgency to.inform ttae public about an actual.or alleged federal government activity,ifmade by a person primarily engaged in disseminating infnrmativn,° 6C.F.R.,§ 5.5(d}(I)(ii)."
Your AugustZl,2014 letter, attached to your September 5,2Ui4 letter as{Exhibit F)states"First, there is `an urgency to inform the public'aboutthis governmentactivity.The government's policies, procedures and practices related to implementation ofthe expedited removal process,including the applica#ion ofthis process to families with minor children apprehended or detained by DHSin Artesia,New.Mexico,have been repeatedly raised and discussed by members ofCongress,the news •media,and die public in recent weeks:.:Furtherinore,early ieports.aboutexpedited removal processing in Artesia raise serious due process concerns.Second,a delayed response would compromise individuals'~due process interests insignificant ways. Attorneys and other service providers need to understand the relevant policies, procedures,and practices to serve the pope~ation ofindividuals in that facility more effectively and to raise any potential challenges to those procedures in a timely manner:..Moreover,adelay in public disclosure and discussion ofthese policies, procedures,and practices wil!likely allow problematic practices to persist longer than they

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 43 of 50
Beth Werlin Page 2 of3 otherwise would.Third,this request obviously `concerns federal government activity' because both the proceedings and the detention facilities are federal." The reasons provided do not demonstrate that there is an urgency to inform the public about an acfual or alleged Federal Government activity,which is"beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally." Inasmuch as there has not been a specific showing that the subject of this FOIA requestis"a matter ofcurrentexigency to the American publzo"and "whether the consequences ofdelaying a response would compromise a significant recognized interest,"the reasons provided do not qualify as an"urgency."See Al-Payed v. Cltit, 254 F.3d 300,314(D.G Cir. 2001). Consequently,ICE has determined thatthe denial ofyour requestfor expedited processing was proper in all respects and that you have not shown that you qualify far expedited processing as required under6 C.F,R.§§ 5.5(d)(1)(i} or{ii).
Constructive Denial Yon have appealed the constructive denial of your FOTA request based upon ICE FOIA's failure to provide you with a response to your FOIA request within ~e thirty(30}days provided by statute. A high number ofFQIA requests have been received by the Department. Accordingly, we have adopted the court-sanctioned practice ofgenerally handling backlogged appeals on a first-in,firstout basis. Consequen#ly, we aze remanding your appeal to ICE FOIA so that thay may complete their prncessing ofthese records and provide a direct response to you.
Fee Waiver You have appealed the dental ofa full fee waiver on your FOIA request. As was explained in a letter dated August 8,2414,TCE FOIA conditionally granted your requestfor a fee waiver. ICEFOIA stated that"the fee waiver determination will b$ based upon a sampling ofOtte respanszve documents received from the various ICE program offices as a result ofthe searches conducted in response to your POIA request.ICE will, pursuant to DHS regulations applicable to non-corr~nercial requesters, process the first 1UO pages.Ifupon review ofthese documents,ICE determinesthatthe disclosure of the information contained is those documents does not mee# the factors permitting ICE to waive the fees,then ICE will at that time either deny your regaestforafee waiver entirely,or will allow for a percentage'reduction in the annount ofthe fees corresponding to the amountofrelevant material found #hat meets the factors allowing fax a fee waiver.In either case,ICE will promptly notify you ofits Baal decision regarding your requestfor a fee waiver and provide you with the responsive recvxds as rec~uir~ci by applicable law." As we aze remanding your appeal back to ICE FOTA so that they may complete their processing of these records, we will also remand your request for a fee waiver to ICE FOTA to make the fee waiver determination based upon a sampling ofthe responsive documents received from the variousICE program offices as aresult oftha searches conducted in response to your F~IA request.
www.ice.gov

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 44 of 50
Beth Werlin Page 3 of3 This decision is the fi~~al acCion ofICE concerning your FOIt~ request.Inasmuch as you consider this'to be a denial ofyour appeal, yoti may obtain judicial review ofthis decision pursuantto the provisions ofS U.S.C.§ 552(a),{4)(B)in the United States District Go~irt in the district in which you reside or have a principal place.ofbusiness,or in which the agency retards are situated,or in the District ofColumbia. The Office ofGovernment Information Services(OGIS}also medzates disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as aran-exclusive alternative to litigation. If you are requesting access to your own records(which is considered a Privacy Act xequest), you sl~outd know that OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests n~,ade under the Privacy Act of 1974. If you wish to contact QGIS, you nay email them at o~isE7nara.~ or call 1-877-684-b448. Should you have any c~ti~estions regarding tl~is appeal adjudication,please contact ICE.at ieefoia cr dhs.~ov. In the subject line ofthe email,Tease include the ~~vord "appeal;"yo~.~r appeal number;which is 2014-ICAP-00420,and tl~e FOIA case nui~~ber, which is 2014-ICF~-04325.
Sincerely,
~~~~v'~~ ~~Debbie Seguin
Chief Governme~at I~~for~nation Law Division ICE Office ofthe Principal.Legal fld~visor U:S. Depa~~Cinent of Homeland Security
www:ice.gav

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 45 of 50
EXHIBIT M

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 46 of 50

From: CBPFOIA~cbp.dhs.~ov [mailto:CBPFOIA~cbp.dhs.~ov] Sent: Tuesday, 7uly 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Beth Werlin Subject: FOIA Request CBP-2014-038899 Submitted

This message is to confirm your request submission to the FOIAonline application: View Request<https://foiaonline.re~ulations.~ov:443/foia/action/public/view/request?ob ~ectId=090004d280307f93>. Request information is as follows:

*

Tracking Number: CBP-2014-038899

*

Requester Name: Beth Werlin

*

Date Submitted: 07/29/2014

*

Request Status: Submitted

*

Description: See attached.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 47 of 50
EXHIBIT N

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 48 of 50
From: CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov [mailto:CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 8:22 AM To: Beth Werlin Subject: FOIA Request Tracking Number Change for Request CBP-2014-038899 (to CBP-OBP-2014038899)
The FOIA request CBP-2014-038899 has had its Tracking Number changed to CBP-OBP-2014038899. This is normally due to the request being transferred to another agency (for example, EPA to Dept. of Commerce)or to asub-agency to process it. Additional details for this request are as follows:
• Old Tracking Number: CBP-2014-038899 • New Tracking Number: CBP-OBP-2014-038899 • Requester Name: Beth Werlin • Date Submitted: 07/29/2014
Long Description: See attached.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 49 of 50
EXHIBIT O

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 1-1 Filed 10/21/14 Page 50 of 50

U.S. Department of Justice Office ofInformation Policy
Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

September 24,2014

Beth Werlin, Esq. American Immigration Council 1331 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 bwerlin(a~i~nmcouncil.org

Re: Appeal No. AP-2014-04322 Request No.2014-22293 SRO:MTC

VIA: E-mail

Dear Ms. Werlin:

This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action ofthe Executive Office for Immigration Review(EOIR)was received in this Office on August 28,2014. You appealed from EOIR's denial of your request for expedited treatment of your request.

The Director ofPublic Affairs considered your request for expedited processing under the fourth standard and determined that your request should be granted expedited processing because the subject of your request constitutes a "matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence." 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(iv)(2013). I concur in that determination. Accordingly,I am remanding your request to EOIR,which will process your request as quickly as practicable.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal for expedited treatment of your request, you may file a lawsuit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii).

Sincerely,

Sean R. O'Neill Chief Administrative Appeals Staff

 Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 71 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al.,
Defendants.

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 06/06/2017
No. 14 Civ. 8403 (LGS)
Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal

WHEREAS, plaintiffs American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Civil Liberties Union (“Plaintiffs”) brought a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action, on or about October 21, 2014, to compel Defendants the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (“CRCL”), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively “Defendants”) to search for and produce documents responsive to a FOIA request submitted by Plaintiffs on July 29, 2014 (Diet. No. 1);
WHEREAS, Defendants with responsive documents produced such documents in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request during the pendency of this litigation;
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the only remaining issue in this matter concerns Plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this case pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (“Plaintiffs’ Fee Request”);
WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve this matter consensually without further litigation.

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 71 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, as follows:
1. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), promptly after the Court has endorsed and docketed this Stipulation and Order ICE shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $16,800 (the “ICE Settlement Amount”), USCIS shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $21,600 (the “USCIS Settlement Amount”) and CRCL shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $9,600 (the “CRCL Settlement Amount” and collectively with the ICE Settlement Amount and the USCIS Settlement Amount, the “Settlement Amount”).
2. Plaintiffs agree to accept the Settlement Amount in full satisfaction of any possible claim, demand or entitlement for attorney’s fees and costs Plaintiffs have incurred or will incur in this action.
3. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, provided that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this Stipulation and Order.
4. Effective upon payment of the Settlement Amount set forth in Paragraph 1, Plaintiffs release the United States, its agencies, departments, officers, employees, servants, and agents, including Defendants, from any claims for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of any kind, and however denominated, relating to services performed in connection with this instant action.
5. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall constitute an admission by United States of America or its agencies, including Defendants, that Plaintiffs or their counsel are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) in this action, or any other FOIA action.
2

Case 1:14-cv-08403-LGS Document 71 Filed 06/06/17 Page 3 of 3
1

6. The Parties understand and agree that this Stipulation and Order contains the entire agreement between them. No statements, representations, promises, agreements, or negotiations, oral or otherwise, between the parties or their counsel that are not included herein shall be of any force or effect.
7. This stipulation may be executed in counterparts. Facsimile or pdf signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.

Dated: Washington, D.C. June 5, 2017

Dated: New York, New York June 5, 2017

JENNER & BLOCK LLP
'Wl By:
MATTHEW E. PRICE 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20001-4412 Telephone: (202) 639-6873 Email: mprice@jenner.com Attorneyfor Plaintiffs

JOON H. KIM Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

By: .

~2L

JAjCOB M. BERGMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

86 Chambers Street

New York, New York 10007

Telephone: (212) 637-2776

Facsimile: (212) 637-2686

Email: jacob.bergman@usdoj.gov

Attorneyfor Defendants

SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York
June 6,

, 2017

THE HONORABLE LORNA G. SCHOFIELD United States District Judge
3

 Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 1 of 12
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−08403−LGS

CLOSED,ECF

American Immigration Council et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Judge Lorna G. Schofield Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Date Terminated: 06/06/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

American Immigration Council

represented by Matthew E. Price Jenner & Block, LLP (DC) 1099 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001−4412 (202) 639−6873 Fax: (202) 661−4802 Email: mprice@jenner.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alvaro M. Huerta National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 639−3900 Fax: (213) 639−3911 Email: huerta@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth Werlin American Immigration Council 1331 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 507−7522 Email: bwerlin@immcouncil.org TERMINATED: 12/10/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Karen C. Tumlin National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 639−3900 Fax: (213) 639−3911 Email: tumlin@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Crow American Immigration Council 1331 G Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 507−7523 Email: mcrow@immcouncil.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa S. Keaney National Immigration Law Center

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 2 of 12

3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 639−3900 Fax: (213) 639−3911 Email: keaney@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Ross Jenner & Block LLP (NYC ) 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212)−891−1600 Fax: (212)−909−0840 Email: mross@jenner.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trina A. Realmuto National Immigration Project/Nlg 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 94104 (617)−227−9727 Fax: (617)−227−5495 Email: trina@nationalimmigrationproject.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

represented by Matthew E. Price (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alvaro M. Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth Werlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/10/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Karen C. Tumlin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Ross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trina A. Realmuto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union

represented by

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 3 of 12
Matthew E. Price (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alvaro M. Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Beth Werlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/10/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Jennifer Chang Newell ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415)−343−0774 Fax: (415)−395−0950 Email: jnewell@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen C. Tumlin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Crow (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W. Ross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trina A. Realmuto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

represented by Jacob Max Bergman United States Attorney's Office, SDNY 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 212−637−2776 Email: jacob.bergman@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob Max Bergman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 4 of 12

Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection

represented by Jacob Max Bergman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob Max Bergman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob Max Bergman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/21/2014
10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014
10/23/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 1107581)Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, American Immigration Council.(laq) (moh). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/27/2014: # 1 Complaint Part 2) (moh). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. (laq) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is so designated. (laq) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
Case Designated ECF. (laq) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (laq) (moh). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael W. Ross on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Ross, Michael) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
4 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.(Ross, Michael) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint,. Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties served on 10/21/2014, answer due 11/12/2014; U.S. Customs and Border Protection served on 10/21/2014, answer due 11/12/2014; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served on 10/21/2014, answer due 11/12/2014; US Citizenship and Immigration Services served on 10/21/2014, answer due 11/12/2014; United States Department of Homeland Security served on 10/21/2014, answer due 11/12/2014. Service was made by Registered Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union; National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; American Immigration Council. (Ross, Michael) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
6 MOTION for Matthew E. Price to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10238399. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Certificates of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Price, Matthew) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 5 of 12

10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/28/2014
10/28/2014 10/28/2014
10/28/2014 10/28/2014 10/28/2014 10/29/2014 10/29/2014

>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 6 MOTION for Matthew E. Price to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10238399. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Trina A. Realmuto on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Realmuto, Trina) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
8 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Matthew E. Price to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Matthew E. Price on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Price, Matthew) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
10 MOTION for Melissa Crow to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10251843. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Certificates of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Crow, Melissa) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 10 MOTION for Melissa Crow to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10251843. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
11 MOTION for Beth Werlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10251900. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Werlin, Beth) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 11 MOTION for Beth Werlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10251900. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
12 ORDER: Initial Conference set for 12/9/2014 at 10:40 AM in Courtroom 1106 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/28/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
13 MOTION for Jennifer Chang Newell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10253276. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Newell, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 13 MOTION for Jennifer Chang Newell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10253276. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
14 MOTION for Karen C. Tumlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10254804. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 6 of 12

10/29/2014 10/29/2014
10/29/2014 10/30/2014
10/31/2014 10/31/2014
11/07/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/12/2014

>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 14 MOTION for Karen C. Tumlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10254804. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
15 MOTION for Alvaro M. Huerta to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10255624. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Huerta, Alvaro) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Alvaro M. Huerta to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10255624. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
16 MOTION for Melissa S. Keaney to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10262621. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keaney, Melissa) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 16 MOTION for Melissa S. Keaney to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10262621. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
17 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Court's Order, dated October 28, 2014, and the Individual Rules and Procedures for Civil Cases for the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Lorna G. Schofield served on U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General, United States Attorney's Office, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection on October 29, 2014. Service was made by Registered Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Ross, Michael) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jacob Max Bergman on behalf of Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
19 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Melissa S. Keaney to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
20 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Melissa Crow to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
21 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Beth Werlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
22 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Jennifer Chang Newell to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
23 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Karen C. Tumlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 7 of 12

11/12/2014 11/24/2014 11/25/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 01/12/2015 01/13/2015
01/13/2015
01/28/2015
01/28/2015
01/30/2015 02/03/2015

24 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Alvaro M. Huerta to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
25 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated November 24, 2014. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
26 ORDER granting 25 Letter Motion for Extension of Time: APPLICATION GRANTED. The deadline for Defendants' Answer is hereby extended to January 12, 2015. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for December 9, 2014, is hereby adjourned to January 20, 2015, at 10:50 a.m. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 27 Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (jcs) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Initial Conference set for 1/20/2015 at 10:50 AM in Courtroom 1106, Thurgood Marshal Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (jcs) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
27 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
28 SECOND LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated January 13, 2015. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
29 ORDER granting 28 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: APPLICATION GRANTED. The conference scheduled for January 20, 2015, at 10:50 a.m. is hereby adjourned to February 3, 2015, at 10:40 a.m. No further extensions will be granted absent exceptional circumstances. (Initial Conference set for 2/3/2015 at 10:40 AM in Courtroom 1106, Thurgood Marshal Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
30 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated January 28, 2015 re: Initial Pretrial Conference. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
31 LETTER MOTION for Conference / to Appear by Telephone at the Initial Pretrial Conference Scheduled for February 3, 2015 at 10:40 a.m. addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Matthew E. Price dated January 28, 2015. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.(Price, Matthew) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
32 ORDER granting 31 Letter Motion for Conference: APPLICATION GRANTED. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
33 ORDER: WHEREAS, a conference was held on February 3, 2015; for the reasons stated at the conference, it is hereby ORDERED that, no later than February 10, 2015, the parties shall submit to the Court a proposed schedule for the production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA request; it is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit joint status letters on April 3, 2015, and May 29, 2015; it is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on June 2, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. Status Conference set for 6/2/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G.

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 8 of 12

02/03/2015 02/13/2015
04/03/2015 05/28/2015 05/29/2015 07/01/2015 08/03/2015 08/05/2015

Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/3/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lorna G. Schofield: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 2/3/2015. (jcs) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
34 STIPULATION AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, subject to approval of the Court, as follows: 1. Beginning in February 2015, DHS shall review 500 pages per month and produce any responsive documents on the 25th day of each month until it has produced all responsive documents that it has gathered; 2. Beginning in February 2015, USCIS shall review 500 pages per month and produce any responsive documents on the 25th day of each month until it has produced all responsive documents that it has gathered; 3. Beginning in February 2015, CRCL shall review 500 pages per month and produce any responsive documents on the 25th day of each month until it has produced all responsive documents that it has gathered; 4. Beginning in February 2015, CBP shall review 500 pages per month and produce any responsive documents on the 25th day of each month until it has produced all responsive documents that it has gathered; 5. Beginning in February 2015, ICE shall produce 750 pages per month on the 25th day of each month until it has produced all responsive documents that it has gathered; 6. For exceptional cause shown, such as, but not limited to, force majeure, Defendants may petition the court for an extension of the deadlines set forth herein. Examples of exceptional cause include but are not limited to government shut−down or sequester causing the closure of Defendants' offices in Washington D.C. for more than three business days, a weather event of significant magnitude such that Defendants' offices in Washington D.C. are closed for more than three business days, or an act of terrorism or war that forces the closure of ICE's offices in Washington D.C. for more than three business days. Plaintiffs retain the right to oppose any such petition on any grounds. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/13/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
35 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated April 3, 2015 re: Status Report. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
36 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated May 28, 2015. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
37 ORDER granting 36 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference:Application GRANTED. The conference scheduled for June 2, 2015, is hereby adjourned to August 11, 2015, at 10:40 a.m. The parties shall submit joint status letters on July 1, 2015, and August 3, 2015.−−−− (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
38 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated July 1, 2015 re: Status Report. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
39 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide a Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated August 3, 2015. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
40 ORDER granting 39 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: Application GRANTED. The conference scheduled for August 11, 2015, is hereby adjourned to October 20, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. At least one week before the conference, the parties shall submit a joint status letter. (Status Conference set for 10/20/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1106, Thurgood Marshal Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 before

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 9 of 12

10/13/2015 10/13/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015
10/16/2015 10/16/2015
12/02/2015 12/09/2015 12/10/2015 01/05/2016

Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lorna G. Schofield)(Text Only Order) (Schofield, Lorna) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
41 LETTER MOTION for Conference / to Appear by Telephone at the Status Conference Scheduled for October 20, 2015 at 10: 30 a.m. addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Matthew E. Price dated October 13, 2015. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.(Price, Matthew) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
42 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated October 13, 2015 re: Status Report. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
43 ORDER granting 41 Letter Motion for Conference. Application GRANTED. All counsel may appear by telephone. At the appointed time, telephone participants shall jointly call Chambers at (212) 805−0288. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/14/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
44 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 42 Letter, filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. ENDORSEMENT: By October 16, 2015, at 12:00 p.m., the parties shall file a joint letter of the outstanding issues to be discussed at the status conference scheduled for October 20, 2015. If there are no outstanding issues, then the status conference will be adjourned. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/14/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
45 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated October 16, 2015. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
46 ORDER granting 45 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The status conference scheduled for October 20, 2015, is adjourned to January 12, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status letter by December 2, 2015, and another joint status letter by January 5, 2016. Any party seeking to bring a motion shall comply with Individual Rule III.A.1. Status Conference set for 1/12/2016 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/16/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
47 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated December 2, 2015 re: Status Report. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
48 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Beth Werlin dated 12/9/2015 re: Withdrawal of Counsel. Document filed by American Immigration Council.(Werlin, Beth) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
49 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 48 Letter filed by American Immigration Council. ENDORSEMENT: Application to withdraw is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove Berth Werlin as a counsel of record on the docket. Attorney Beth Werlin terminated. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/10/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
50 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide a Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated January 5, 2016. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 10 of 12

01/06/2016
02/23/2016 02/24/2016
04/19/2016 04/20/2016 06/14/2016 06/15/2016 08/02/2016 08/03/2016 10/24/2016

51 ORDER granting 50 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide a Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated January 5, 2016. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. Application GRANTED. The conference scheduled for January 12, 2016, is adjourned to March 1, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint status letter by February 23, 2016. (Status Conference set for 3/1/2016 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield). (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/6/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
52 LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated February 23, 2016 re: Status Report. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
53 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 52 Letter, filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. The conference scheduled for March 1, 2016, is hereby adjourned to April 26, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint status letter by April 19, 2016. ( Status Conference set for 4/26/2016 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/24/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
54 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated April 19, 2016. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
55 ORDER granting 54 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The Conference scheduled for April 26, 2016, is hereby adjourned to June 21, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint status letter by June 14, 2016. Status Conference set for 6/21/2016 at 10:30 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/20/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
56 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated June 14, 2016. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
57 ORDER granting 56 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference scheduled for June 21, 2016, is adjourned to August 9, 2016, at 10:50 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status letter by August 2, 2016. Status Conference set for 8/9/2016 at 10:50 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
58 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated August 2, 2016. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
59 ORDER granting 58 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference currently scheduled for August 9, 2016, is adjourned to November 1, 2016, at 10:40 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status letter by October 25, 2016. Status Conference set for 11/1/2016 at 10:40 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/3/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
60 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated October 24, 2016. Document

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 11 of 12

10/25/2016
11/21/2016 11/22/2016 11/23/2016 01/31/2017 02/01/2017 04/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/09/2017

filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
61 ORDER granting 60 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference currently scheduled for November 1, 2016, is hereby adjourned to November 29, 2016, at 11:10 a.m. The parties shall file a file a joint status letter by November 22, 2016. Any request for adjournment shall comply with Individual Rule I.B.2, including stating the previous number of requests for adjournment and whether previous requests were granted or denied. Status Conference set for 11/29/2016 at 11:10 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/25/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
62 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the proceeding in this matter, previously scheduled for 11/29/2016 at 11:10 a.m., shall be adjourned to 11/29/2016 at 05:00 PM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield, due to a scheduling conflict. Any parties not located within the metropolitan area who wish to participate telephonically may do so by advising the Court, convening all parties on the line and calling into chambers at (212) 805−0288. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/21/2016) (tro) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
63 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated November 22, 2016. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
64 ORDER granting 63 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference currently scheduled for November 29, 2016, is adjourned to February 7, 2017, at 10:40 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status letter by January 31, 2017. Status Conference set for 2/7/2017 at 10:40 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/23/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
65 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated January 31, 2017. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
66 ORDER granting 65 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference currently scheduled for February 7, 2017, is adjourned to April 11, 2017, at 10:20 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status letter by April 4, 2017. Status Conference set for 4/11/2017 at 10:20 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/1/2017) (kgo) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
67 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated April 4, 2017. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
68 ORDER: granting 67 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference currently scheduled for April 11, 2017, is adjourned to May 16, 2017, at 10:40 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status letter by May 9, 2017. Status Conference set for 5/16/2017 at 10:40 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/4/2017) (ap) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
69 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference and Provide Status Report addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Jacob M. Bergman dated May 9, 2017. Document filed by Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security.(Bergman, Jacob) (Entered: 05/09/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-8403 As of: 11/03/2017 12:25 PM EDT 12 of 12

05/10/2017 06/06/2017

70 ORDER: granting 69 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The conference currently scheduled for May 16, 2017, is hereby adjourned until June 13, 2017, at 10:50 a.m. Status Conference set for 6/13/2017 at 10:50 AM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/10/2017) (ap) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
71 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, as follows: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), promptly after the Court has endorsed and docketed this Stipulation and Order ICE shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $16,800, USCIS shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $21,600 and CRCL shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $9,600. Plaintiffs agree to accept the Settlement Amount in full satisfaction of any possible claim, demand or entitlement for attorney's fees and costs Plaintiffs have incurred or will incur in this action. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, provided that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this Stipulation and Order. (As further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/6/2017) (kgo) (Entered: 06/06/2017)


On October 21, 2014, the American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and American Civil Liberties Union filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to disclose documents regarding information and practices concerning the expedited removal of families from an Artesia, New Mexico immigration detention center. The production of the requested documents was ordered. The parties settled on June 6, 2017.