Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Transcription

1 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) Daniel Acosta Sarmiento ) A ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Indalecio Ramos, Warden, ) Pine Prairie Correctional Center; ) Case No. 6:16-cv-1424 David Rivera, New Orleans Field Office ) Director, Office of Enforcement and ) Removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs ) Enforcement; ) Sarah Saldaña, Director, ) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;) Jeh Johnson, Secretary, ) Department of Homeland Security; and ) Department of Homeland Security ) ) Respondents. ) ) PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C Petitioner Daniel Acosta Sarmiento seeks immediate release or an immediate bond hearing to argue for his release as he is being held in no-bond detention while his claim for humanitarian immigration relief from removal is adjudicated. This detention violates federal statute, which prohibits the deportation of immigrants with humanitarian claims for relief from removal though the government erroneously contends that these immigrant victims of persecution may be held in prolonged, no-bond detention. See 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). 1

2 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2 Mr. Acosta Sarmiento seeks humanitarian relief in the form of withholding of removal, as his entire family is being persecuted and threatened with death in their home country of Honduras. On June 16, 2016, an Asylum Officer conducted an interview with Mr. Acosta Sarmiento and found his fear of persecution in Honduras to be reasonable. While his claim is being adjudicated, he is entitled to argue for his release at a bond hearing as other aliens in removal proceedings are generally permitted. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has denied him bond and the Immigration Judge found he had no jurisdiction over bond because Mr. Acosta Sarmiento has a prior order of removal. The government s interpretation of the statute as authorizing prolonged, no-bond detention is erroneous and inconsistent with the plain language and structure of the statute. Every federal circuit court that has considered the question has rejected the government s interpretation. See Guerra v. Shanahan, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL (2d Cir. 2016) (alien in withholding-only proceedings entitled to a bond hearing); see also Luna-Garcia v. Holder, 777 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2015) (denial of withholding in withholding-only proceedings is an appealable final order and reinstatement of removal is not an appealable final order); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2012) (same). Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is a long-time resident of Louisiana and had been living with his U.S.-citizen wife and their U.S.-citizen children in Kenner, Louisiana for years. He was abruptly seized by ICE on May 17, 2016 and was immediately placed in detention in Pine Prairie Correctional Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana over three hours away from his home and his family. His requests for bond have been repeatedly denied. His wife is working two jobs to support the family but nevertheless makes the trip to Pine Prairie to see Mr. Acosta Sarmiento every week on Sundays the only day when Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is permitted to see visitors. 2

3 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3 Mr. Acosta Sarmiento sees his youngest U.S.-citizen child only once a month because the detention center is too far away for the infant to comfortably make the trip on a regular basis. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is likely to be unlawfully detained for many more months or even years unless this court intervenes. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is actively pursuing a meritorious claim for relief from removal based on his fear of returning to Honduras. He fears removal because of violence already committed and threats of future violence against all members of his family by another family heavily involved with local gangs in Honduras. Two of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s family members have been shot and one shooting victim died, and those responsible have made known their intention to kill every remaining living relative of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s family. To deport Mr. Acosta Sarmiento would be to condemn him to probable death, which makes his removal unlawful under U.S. and international law. JURISDICTION 1. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento challenges the legality of his detention without bail under the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, at 8 U.S.C et seq. This Court has jurisdiction to hear such claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 703, 28 U.S.C et seq. and Article 1, 9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause). 2. Petitioner is in custody under color of the authority of the United States in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. VENUE 3. The Western District of Louisiana is the proper venue for this petition because Petitioner 3

4 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4 is being detained in Pine Prairie Correctional Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. PARTIES 4. Petitioner, Mr. Acosta Sarmiento, is a native and citizen of Honduras. He was taken into ICE custody on May 17, 2016, and he has remained in ICE custody ever since. 5. Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is an agency of the United States government, responsible for the administration and enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. DHS is a legal custodian of Petitioner. 6. Respondent Jeh Johnson is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ). He is responsible for administering and enforcing immigration laws. As such, Mr. Johnson is a legal custodian of Petitioner. 7. Respondent Sarah Saldaña is sued in her official capacity as the Director of ICE. She is responsible for the administration of ICE and the implementation and enforcement of immigration laws. As such, Ms. Saldaña is a legal custodian of Petitioner. 8. Respondent David Rivera is sued in his official capacity as the ICE Field Office Director of the New Orleans Field Office. He is responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws and for the custody of all aliens detained by Respondent DHS at the Pine Prairie Correctional Center. Therefore he is a legal custodian of Petitioner. 9. Respondent Indalecio Ramos is sued in his official capacity as Warden of the Pine Prairie Correctional Center where Petitioner is currently detained under the authority of ICE. He is the Petitioner s legal and physical custodian. 4

5 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 10. On September 28, 2016, the Immigration Judge found that he has no jurisdiction over bond. On September 29, 2016, Petitioner s wife delivered a letter to the New Orleans ICE Field Office requesting Petitioner s release, given that agency s lack of statutory authority for holding Petitioner in no-bond detention. On October 7, 2016, Petitioner s wife delivered a second letter to the New Orleans ICE Field Office, again requesting release. ICE denied the request for release, communicated by Assistant Field Office Director Brian Acuna to counsel. 11. Petitioner has no other remedy at law but to seek habeas relief from this Court. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento exhausted his administrative remedies in this case or any administrative remedies would be futile. RELEVANT LAW 12. Under the INA, noncitizens in removal proceedings are generally eligible for release on bond. The INA provides that the Attorney General may release aliens on parole or bond pending a decision on whether or not the alien is to be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). 13. There is a limited exception for noncitizens who have committed certain crimes, including crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes relating to a controlled substance, or an aggravated felony, among others. 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). This provision does not apply in Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s case. 14. In the case of noncitizens who have been ordered removed and will be imminently deported, they can be held in no-bond detention for the removal period, a short period 5

6 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6 of detention necessary to effectuate removal. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1). According to the statute's express language, the removal period commences on the date the order of removal becomes administratively final or, if judicial review is sought and a judicial stay of removal is issued, the date the federal court's order becomes final. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1). 15. Noncitizens who have entered the United States after having been previously removed and have been seized by ICE are placed in summary proceedings to reinstate the previously entered order of removal. The INA provides: If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States after having been removed or having departed voluntarily under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5). 16. However, under 8 C.F.R , if the alien has a reasonable fear of a threat to their freedom or life in their country of origin, the matter is referred to an Immigration Judge for further proceedings. Those proceedings are referred to as withholding-only proceedings, meaning that withholding of removal (under statute and under the Convention Against Torture) because of threat to freedom or life is the only form of relief available to the alien. 17. For a removal period pursuant to a reinstatement of removal order to be triggered, the order of removal must be administratively final. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(A). Importantly, 8 U.S.C further provides the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien s life or freedom would be 6

7 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7 threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). Family has been recognized as a particular social group. See Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829 F.3d 379, 389 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016) (noting that each court that has addressed the issue has concluded that family background can constitute a particular social group under the INA ). 18. The language in 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) makes clear that aliens seeking withholding of removal are awaiting a determination of whether or not they should be removed from the United States. They are not in the removal period because the statute prohibits their removal if their claim for withholding is legitimate. 19. Because the decision to remove them from the United States is still being adjudicated, aliens in withholding proceedings are detained, pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States, under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). Every federal circuit court that has considered the question has found that respondents in withholding-only proceedings do not have an administratively final order of removal. See Guerra v. Shanahan, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming district court s order of a bond hearing for alien in withholding-only proceedings because detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)); Luna-Garcia v. Holder, 777 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2015) (denial of withholding in withholding-only proceedings is an appealable final order and reinstatement of removal is not an appealable final order); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2012) (same). 20. The Second Circuit opinion in Guerra v. Shanahan thoroughly analyzed the statutory bases for immigration detention and found that immigrants in withholding-only 7

8 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8 proceedings were entitled to bond hearings because they are being held under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). -- F.3d --, 2016 WL (2d Cir. 2016). That Court held that the statute s text and structure showed that the immigrant seeking withholding was in removal proceedings and had no administratively final removal order and so was entitled to bond. Id. at *2 3. The Court found that the 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) was the more logical source of authorization for the detention of aliens currently in withholding-only proceedings, id. at *3, because the purpose of withholding-only proceedings is to determine precisely whether the alien is to be removed from the United States, id. at *2 (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is a native and citizen of Honduras. He came to the United States in 2004 seeking to escape violence in Honduras and to find work in the United States. 22. In 2008, ICE removed Mr. Acosta Sarmiento back to Honduras. 23. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento returned to the U.S. in late 2008, entering without inspection. He came back to the U.S. to be with his U.S.-citizen child and U.S.-citizen partner, who is now his wife. 24. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento was arrested on May 17, 2016 by ICE. ICE issued a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5). 25. Nothing in Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s record triggers mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). 26. Because Mr. Acosta Sarmiento articulated a fear of returning to Honduras, Mr. Acosta 8

9 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9 Sarmiento s case was referred to the DHS s Asylum Office to conduct a Reasonable Fear Interview. 27. On June 16, 2016, an Asylum Officer conducted Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s reasonable fear interview and found his fear reasonable. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s case was referred to the Immigration Court for proceedings to determine his eligibility for Withholding of Removal pursuant to INA 241(b)(3) and Withholding of Removal under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ) pursuant to 8 C.F.R (c)(2). 28. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento fears being removed to Honduras because of death threats and violence committed by another family heavily involved with local gangs. One of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s brothers has been assassinated by the family s persecutors and another brother was a victim of a shooting that caused serious injury. Even relatives living in the United States are receiving death threats. 29. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento seeks adjudication of his claim for withholding of removal based on his fear of family-based persecution in Honduras if he is forced to return. He is terrified of returning to Honduras. 30. At a scheduling hearing in Immigration Court on September 12, 2016, the Immigration Judge set the merits hearing for Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s withholding claim for December 6, On September 28, 2016, at a bond hearing for Mr. Acosta Sarmiento, the Immigration Judge found that he had no jurisdiction to consider Mr. Acosta Sarmiento s request for release on bond. 9

10 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE UNLAWFUL NO-BOND DETENTION 32. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 above. 33. Detention without bond of such aliens like Petitioner in withholding-only proceedings is not authorized by statute and is prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 34. Petitioner, in withholding-only proceedings seeking humanitarian relief from removal, has now been detained without bond and without review for over four months. COUNT TWO PROLONGED NO-BOND DETENTION 35. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 above. 36. Prolonged detention of aliens is not authorized by statute and is prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 37. Petitioner should be released pending the determination of his application for withholding of removal because his prolonged detention is not authorized by statute and raises constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 38. Regardless of the statutory authority for Petitioner s detention, he is entitled to a bond hearing when that detention becomes prolonged and unreasonable. The Supreme Court 10

11 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11 has recognized that due process concerns limit permissible civil detention, holding that civil detention violates the Due Process Clause unless there is a strong special justification that outweighs the individual s constitutionally protected interest in freedom from imprisonment. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Court further held that detention of an alien with a final order of removal was presumptively unreasonable after six months of detention because of due process concerns. Id. at 701. After six months of detention, the alien is entitled to a hearing to argue for his release. 39. There is no likelihood of removal of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento because federal statute prohibits his removal while his claim for withholding is being adjudicated. 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). Mr. Acosta Sarmiento intends to fully press his claim for relief, including any appeals that might be necessary. 40. Furthermore, the same constitutional due process concerns with prolonged detention apply to aliens in removal proceedings. Though the Court in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), permitted mandatory detention of aliens convicted of certain crimes for five months during their removal proceedings, Justice Kennedy noted that even mandatory detention for criminal aliens would violate due process if the continued detention became unreasonable or unjustified. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 41. Petitioner has currently been detained for over four months. His merits hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2016, and if he continues to be held in no-bond detention he will be detained for over six months by the time he appears for his merits hearing. He could be detained even longer for an unforeseeable period of time while his claim for relief is being adjudicated. 11

12 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court grant the following relief: 1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 2) Grant Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus directing the Respondents to immediately release Petitioner on his own recognizance or under parole, bond, or reasonable conditions of supervision; 3) If DHS seeks to put conditions on Petitioner s release, grant Petitioner an individualized hearing as to his flight risk and danger to the community or direct Respondent to grant Petitioner such a hearing, at which DHS will bear the burden of proving that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community; 4) Award Petitioner reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504 and 28 U.S.C. 2412; and 5) Grant any other further relief that this court deems just and proper. Dated: October 11, 2016 _/s/ Mary Yanik Mary Yanik Staff Attorney / Liman Legal Fellow New Orleans Workers Center for Racial Justice 217 N Prieur St New Orleans, LA Phone: Fax: myanik@nowcrj.org /s/ JJ Rosenbaum JJ Rosenbaum Legal Director New Orleans Workers Center for Racial Justice 12

13 Case 6:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: N Prieur St New Orleans, LA Phone: _/s/ William P. Quigley William P. Quigley Loyola University New Orleans College of Law 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA Phone: quigley@loyno.edu Pro Bono Counsel for Petitioner 13

14 JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) Case 6:16-cv Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14 CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country Clic ere for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC (a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/disabilities Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/disabilities Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration Other 550 Civil Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause: 6 Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY DATE CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. (See instructions): JUDGE DEMAND $ SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: Yes No DOCKET NUMBER FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

15 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16) Case 6:16-cv Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) II. III. IV. Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C and Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. lace an in t e appropriate o. f t ere are multiple nature of suit codes associated it t e case pic t e nature of suit code t at is most applica le. Clic ere for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue. VI. VII. VIII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

16 Case 6:16-cv Document 1-2 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet Mary Yanik Staff Attorney / Liman Legal Fellow New Orleans Workers Center for Racial Justice 217 N Prieur St New Orleans, LA Phone: Fax: myanik@nowcrj.org JJ Rosenbaum Legal Director New Orleans Workers Center for Racial Justice 217 N Prieur St New Orleans, LA Phone: William P. Quigley Loyola University New Orleans College of Law 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA Phone: quigley@loyno.edu Attorneys for Defendants: Attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, David Rivera, Sarah Saldaña, Jeh Johnson, Indalecio Ramos The Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, Phone number not known