Youngers v. United States of America, Docket No. 1:21-cv-00620 (D.N.M. filed Jul. 2, 2021), consolidated with Youngers v. Management & Training Corp. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00465-WJ-JHR (D.N.M.)

On November 22, 2019, the siblings of Roxsana Hernandez Rodriguez and a representative of her estate filed an administrative claim for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after Roxsana, a Honduran transgender woman, died in immigration custody.

After fleeing horrific violence in Honduras, Roxsana and seventeen other transgender asylum seekers presented themselves at the U.S. port of entry in San Ysidro, California on May 9, 2018. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers took Roxsana into custody and failed to conduct any medical screening, though she requested to see a doctor for what she described as an infection.

CBP held Roxsana in a processing facility commonly referred to as an “hielera” or “ice box” because of its frigid temperatures. While in CBP custody, Roxsana’s health rapidly deteriorated. She coughed so much that she had difficulty breathing and she vomited regularly. The food CBP officers offered caused her to suffer diarrhea, stomach pain, and further vomiting. CBP officers refused to provide any medical assistance until other asylum seekers stopped eating in protest.

CBP agents brought Roxsana to a hospital, but remained present during her exam and kept her in shackles. Rather than providing a Spanish interpreter, the officers primarily communicated with the doctors themselves. The hospital cleared Roxsana for immigration detention before learning that she was HIV positive.

Until her death on May 25, 2018, Roxsana remained in immigration custody, transferred between facilities as her health continued to deteriorate. By the time Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers brought her to the hospital on May 17, 2018, doctors found her condition “way beyond” their ability to provide meaningful care. An independent autopsy determined the cause of death was “most probably severe complications of dehydration superimposed upon HIV infection, with the probable presence of one or more opportunistic infections.” The doctor also found evidence of physical abuse, with deep tissue bruising.

In the November 2019 claim, and a later supplement, Roxsana’s family and estate charged the United States as liable for wrongful death, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, failure to provide medical care, medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and loss of chance of survival.

On July 2, 2021, Joleen Youngers, as the Ms. Hernandez’s estate representative, filed a complaint against the United States Government.

Following case consolidation in December 2021, a second amended complaint was filed in January 2022. Defendants moved to dismiss. On April 1, 2022, the district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 15, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. In October 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants CoreCivic and TransCor to provide further discovery.

Press Coverage:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/ice-surveillance-video-transgender-asylum-seeker

Counsel: Law Office of R. Andrew Free | Daniel Yohalem | Katherine Murray | Transgender Law Center | Grand & Eisenhofer P.A.

Contact: R. Andrew Free | (844) 321-3221 | Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com

A.B.-B. v. Morgan

A.B.-B., et al., v. Morgan, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00846-RJL (D.D.C., filed Mar. 27, 2020)

On March 27, 2020, five asylum-seeking mothers and their children filed this action challenging the use of U.S. Border Patrol agents to screen asylum seekers for their “credible fear” of persecution.

Many people seeking asylum at the border must first pass a “credible fear” screening interview before an immigration judge can more fully review their claims. At this interview, asylum seekers provide sensitive details about the persecution they suffered and the reasons they fled. These screenings are not supposed to be interrogations. They must be done by officers trained specifically to evaluate asylum claims and work with victims of trauma. And for decades, that is how these interviews were conducted.

Beginning in April 2019, however, the government quietly started to change who was responsible for conducting the interview. A pilot program replaced some experienced asylum officers with Border Patrol agents—a law enforcement agency with a history of abuse and misconduct toward asylum seekers.

Asylum seekers and attorneys report that Border Patrol agents conduct the interviews like criminal interrogations. Asylum seekers say they are yelled at, cut off when responding, and scolded if they cry or show other signs of trauma.

Border Patrol agents conducted credible fear interviews, and issued negative credible fear determinations, for the plaintiff families while they were detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. Their complaint alleges that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) official who authorized Border Patrol agents to conduct these interviews was illegally appointed, that only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct these interviews, and that Border Patrol agents are not properly trained and cannot conduct non-adversarial interviews.

 On April 2, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and administrative stay and temporarily enjoined their removal. On May 12, 2020, the court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion seeking a preliminary injunction. The parties submitted supplemental briefing on June 1, 2020. On August 29, 2020, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from removing Plaintiffs until the court has ruled on the merits of this case and enjoining Defendants from continuing to permit Border Patrol agents to conduct credible fear interviews and make credible fear determinations. Defendants proceeded to request several extensions of their deadline to answer the complaint. No answer has been filed. On October 5, 2022, the court granted a joint motion to stay the proceedings for 180 days.

Counsel: Tahirih Justice Center; Constitutional Accountability Center

Contact: Julie M. Carpenter | Tahirih Justice Center | juliec@tahirih.org

Guan v. Mayorkas

Guan, et al., v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06570-PKC-JO (E.D.N.Y., filed Nov. 20, 2019)

In Guan v. Wolf, five journalists were tracked by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other government agencies, and then detained, and interrogated by CBP officials when attempting to re-enter the United States. In response to this unprecedented coordinated attack on the freedom of the press, Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of their First Amendment rights on November 20, 2019.

Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler are all U.S. citizen professional photojournalists. Between November 2018 and January 2019, they separately traveled to Mexico to document people traveling north from Central America by caravan in an attempt to reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Border patrol agents referred each journalist to secondary inspection on their return to the United States and questioned them about their work as photojournalists, including their coverage of the caravan, their observations of conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border, and their knowledge of the identities of certain individuals. This questioning focused on what each journalist had observed in Mexico in the course of working as a journalist, and did not relate to any permissible immigration or customs purpose. A secret government database leaked to NBC San Diego in March 2019 revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had engaged in wide-ranging intelligence collection targeting activists, lawyers, and journalists—including these five journalists—working on issues related to the October 2018 migrant caravan and conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The five journalists filed this action alleging that CBP’s questioning aimed at uncovering their sources of information and their observations as journalists was unconstitutional. They seek a declaratory judgment that such conduct violated the First Amendment. The journalists further seek an injunction requiring the government to expunge any records it retained regarding the unlawful questioning and to inform the journalists whether those records have been disclosed to other agencies, governments, or individuals. On August 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs have opposed. On March 30, 2021, the District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged infringement of their First Amendment rights. The case is now in discovery.

Counsel: ACLU; NYCLU; ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties; Covington & Burling LLP

Contact:  Scarlet Kim | ACLU | scarletk@aclu.org

Al Otro Lado v. Wolf

Al Otro Lado et al. v. McAleenan et al., No. 3:17-cv-02366 (S.D. Cal., filed July 12, 2017), No. 22-55988 (9th Cir., filed Sept. 21, 2022), and No. 22-56036 (9th Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2022)

On July 12, 2017, the American Immigration Council, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Latham & Watkins, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The plaintiffs in the case are Al Otro Lado (a non-profit legal services organization that serves indigent deportees, migrants, and refugees in Los Angeles and Tijuana) and six courageous asylum seekers who experienced CBP’s unlawful conduct firsthand. Their experiences demonstrate that CBP uses a variety of tactics—including misrepresentation, threats and intimidation, verbal and physical abuse, and coercion—to deny bona fide asylum seekers the opportunity to pursue their claims. The complaint alleges that CBP’s conduct violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the doctrine of non-refoulement under international law.

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which included dozens of declarations from asylum seekers CBP had turned away at the border. On November 28, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of California and dismissed all pending motions without prejudice. On August 20, 2018, the court denied in part and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the majority of plaintiffs’ claims to go forward. On October 12, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint highlighting the Trump administration’s specific implementation of the “turnback policy” as well as the administration’s own “zero-tolerance policy.”

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 29, 2018, which Plaintiffs opposed. Close to two dozen states filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, as did many members of Congress, Amnesty International, law professors, and nineteen nonprofit immigrant advocacy organizations.

In July 2019, the judge rejected most of Defendants’ claims in the motion to dismiss and ordered the government to file an answer to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which it did in August 2019. In February, the parties completed briefing on certification of a class consisting of all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting themselves at a POE on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process by or at the instruction of CBP officials on or after January 1, 2016, as well as sub-class of those who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process as a result of metering over the same time period.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

While this case has been pending, and asylum seekers remain stranded in Mexico under the Turnback Policy, the Trump administration issued an interim final rule (the “Asylum Ban”) barring individuals from asylum eligibility in the United States if they transited through a third country and did not seek protection there first. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion seeking provisional class certification asking the district court to keep Defendants from applying the Asylum Ban to provisional class members, in order to maintain their eligibility for asylum until the court rules on the legality of the Trump administration’s metering policy in this case.

On November 19, 2019, the court provisionally certified a class consisting of “all non-Mexican asylum seekers who were unable to make a direct asylum claim at a U.S. [port of entry] before July 16, 2019 because of the U.S. Government’s metering policy, and who continue to seek access to the U.S. asylum process.” The court also blocked Defendants from applying the Asylum Ban to members of the provisional class and ordered that Defendants apply pre-Asylum Ban practices for processing the asylum applications of members of the class.

On December 4, 2019, Defendants appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 5, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ motion for a stay of the order until the appellate court decides the merits of the appeal. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit lifted its previously imposed emergency temporary stay of the order. At this time, the district court’s order is in effect.

On July 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify the preliminary injunction, asserting that since the Ninth Circuit lifted the temporary stay, Defendants had committed “numerous violations of the preliminary injunction,” including “tak[ing] minimal and insufficient steps to identify class members and to ensure that the Asylum Ban does not impact their eligibility for asylum” and refusing to produce the written guidance sent to the various government agencies involved in implementing the preliminary injunction. Defendants responded in opposition to the motion on August 3, 2020 and Plaintiffs replied on August 10, 2020.

Class Certification

Oral argument was held on the motion for class certification on July 30, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying a class consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.- Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process by or at the instruction of [CBP] officials on or after January 1, 2016.” The court also certified a subclass of “all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.”

Discovery began and on September 4, 2020 Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 25, 2020, Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion.

Class counsel have prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) resource to address common questions about the court’s order, class membership, and implementation.  The FAQ resource will be updated periodically and is available here.

Motion for Summary Judgment

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in September 2020. On September 2, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part, specifically to Plaintiff’s claim for violations of APA § 706(1) and Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to claims based on the ultra vires violations of the right to seek asylum and violation of the Alien Tort Statute. The court deferred a decision on remedy and asked the parties to submit briefing on remedies in light of the APA § 706(1) finding and considering how Title 42 would affect the implementation of a remedy. The parties submitted supplemental briefs on October 1, 2021. On April 1, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report addressing current issues regarding court oversight and remedies.

On August 5, 2022, the court issued two decisions. First, the judge converted the preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction and granted in part, but denied in part, Plaintiffs’ motion to clarify the preliminary injunction order. Second, she issued a decision with respect to remedies on summary judgment. The court concluded that it could not enter any injunctive relief, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). Instead, the court entered declaratory judgment, declaring that “absent any independent, express, and lawful statutory authority, Defendants’ refusal to deny inspection or asylum processing to noncitizens who have not been admitted or paroled and who are in the process of arriving in the United States at Class A Ports of Entry is unlawful regardless of the purported justification for doing so.”

The parties have cross-appealed the final judgment to the Ninth Circuit.

Counsel: Mayer Brown LLP | American Immigration Council | Center for Constitutional Rights | Southern Poverty Law Center | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Melissa Crow | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies | crowmelissa@uchastings.edu

American Immigration Lawyers Association v. DHS, et al.

American Immigration Lawyers Association v. DHS, et al., No. 1:16-cv-02470 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 19, 2016)

On July 10, 2013, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), submitted a FOIA request to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), seeking records relating to the issuance and implementation of the Officers’ Resource Tool (ORT) and how it has come to replace the Inspector’s Field Manual (IFM). The ORT replaced the IFM, which previously provided guidance regarding the inspection and admission of individuals into the United States at U.S. ports of entry. CBP failed to produce any responsive records and did not respond to AILA’s administrative appeal.

In December 2016, the American Immigration Council, in cooperation with Foley and Lardner, LLP, filed the lawsuit on AILA’s behalf seeking to compel CBP to release the ORT. On June 7, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on March 30, 2018. After continued delays in production, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for summary judgment in December 2018. The court denied that motion without prejudice,  but ordered the government to produce documents by May 31, 2019.

In November 2019, Defendants filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, and in January 2020, Plaintiffs filed their opposition, as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment. On March 10, 2020, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition and their opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. On July 22, 2020, the district court ordered additional, unredacted production from Defendants. On April 30, 2021, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case.

Counsel: Emily Creighton | American Immigration Council | ecreighton@immcouncil.org
Kristin Macleod-Ball | American Immigration Council | kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org
Naikang Tsao | Foley & Lardner LLP | ntsao@foley.com

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. CBP

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:17-cv-00708 (D.D.C. filed April 18, 2017)

In March 2017, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) filed a Freedom of Information Act request with CBP seeking agency records relating to Global Entry System (GES) revocations, suspensions, terminations, confirmations, and policy practices. ADC alleged that after the November 2016 presidential election, and significantly accelerating following President Trump’s attempted travel ban implementation, CBP began revoking—without explanation—Global Entry System approval for Arabs and Muslims who previously had been approved for Global Entry. ADC further alleged that the revocations were not isolated incidents but rather part of a wider pattern in which CBP singled out travelers with Arab or Muslim names or ancestries and revoked their GES approval without any accompanying material change in circumstance or security risk. Those singled out for revocation included doctors, bankers, students, and businesspeople. These revocations also corresponded with inexplicably heightened scrutiny by CBP agents towards Arab and Muslim travelers in the wake of the travel ban.

Through its FOIA request, ADC specifically sought agency records relating to each revocation, suspension, or termination of GES participation beginning November 9, 2016, as well as additional records that would show a pattern of CBP’s singling out Arab and Muslim travelers from whom to revoke GES approval, including agency records created on or after November 9, 2016, relating to the operation or functioning of the GES program and containing the words or phrases “Muslim,” “Arab,” “ban,” “Muslim ban,” or “travel ban.”

CBP failed to disclose the requested records within the designated timeframe. In April 2017 ADC sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel DHS to produce the requested records.

After two years of litigation, the parties settled on their disputes on the merits and with respect to attorneys’ fees, and the case was voluntarily dismissed in July 2019.

Co-Counsel: R. Andrew Free | Law Office of R. Andrew Free

Co-Counsel: Gregory H. Siskind | Siskind Susser, PC

Contact: R. Andrew Free | andrew@immigrationcivilrights.com | 844-321-3221

Murphy v. CBP

Murphy v. CBP, No. 3:15-cv-00133-GMG-RWT (N.D.W.V., filed Dec. 4, 2015)

Acting pro se, a former armed security guard under federal contract at the CBP Training Center in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia filed a Freedom of Information Act complaint against CBP on December 4, 2015.  The complaint alleged that CBP unlawfully redacted or withheld over 80% of the responsive documents that Plaintiff sought in conjunction with an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint he filed alleging that CBP unlawfully terminated him due to his race and his wife’s race and religion.

After initially moving to dismiss the complaint due to insufficient service, which the district court denied, CBP moved for summary judgment.  Plaintiff opposed the motion, cross-filed for summary judgment, and filed a motion to compel as well as for in camera review of the documents.  After the completing of briefing, on August 5, 2016, the district court denied CBP’s motion for summary judgment, holding that CBP failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that documents responsive to the Plaintiff’s FOIA request were withheld pursuant to a recognized FOIA exemption under FOIA.  The court further established a schedule for the filing of a Vaughn index and for additional briefing from the parties. The court also denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for in camera review of the responsive documents.

On August 8, 2015, CBP filed its answer to the complaint.

On June 13, 2017, the court denied Defendant’s third motion for summary judgment, granted Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, and ordered Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for the expenses he incurred in bringing the suit.

Cervantes v. United States, et al.

Cervantes v. United States, et al., No. 4:16-cv-00334-CKJ (D. Ariz., filed June 8, 2016) 

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff, a teenage U.S. citizen, filed a law suit under Bivens, the Federal Tort Claim Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking redress for seven hours of abusive and degrading searches and strip searches by Border Patrol agents.  The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was walking home after eating breakfast in Nogales, Sonora when a Border Patrol agent accused her of carrying drugs.  She was then directed to a detention room, handcuffed to a chair, sniffed by dogs, and strip-searched by female agents.   After no drugs were found, CBP agents brought her to Holy Cross Hospital, in handcuffs, where hospital staff subjected her to invasive pelvic and rectal exams while CBP agents observed.

On October 24, 2016, the Government filed their answer to the complaint.

On February 7, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Bivens claims against Defendant Patrick F. Martinez, M.D. On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant Martinez’s motion to dismiss. Subsequently, Defendant Martinez withdrew his motion to dismiss on February 28, 2017.

On November 10, 2017, Defendant Quantum Plus filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff erroneously brought a negligent hiring claim based solely on a Bivens action against an agent. Several days later, Defendant Holy Cross Hospital moved to join in Quantum Plus’ motion. On February 19, 2018, Defendant Martinez filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff could not bring a Bivens action against him because he was privately employed and not acting under claim of federal authority at the time of the medical examination.

The court granted the motions on July 18, 2018, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. With respect to Quantum Plus and Holy Cross Hospitals’ motion, the court reasoned that Plaintiff could not hold Defendants liable on a negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim in a Bivens cause of action. Regarding Defendant Martinez’ motion, the court held that it may not impose Bivens liability because Plaintiff may pursue an alternate state court action.

Counsel: Brian Marchetti, Marchetti Law PLC and Matthew C. Davidson | Law Offices of Matthew C Davidson Limited

Arizona Interior Enforcement Complaint

Arizona Interior Enforcement Complaint

In June 2016, the ACLU of Arizona filed a complaint on behalf of ten individuals with U.S. Department of Homeland Security oversight agencies and the Department of Justice demanding investigations into abuses arising from Border Patrol interior operations.

Most of the incidents described in the ACLU’s complaint arose in the course of Border Patrol checkpoint and “roving patrol” stops.  Several describe agents wrongfully detaining innocent residents for days in filthy, frigid, and overcrowded detention facilities.  Although these individuals were not charged with any crime or immigration violation, their property was confiscated and some had to pay thousands of dollars to recover a vehicle.

In other cases, residents describe facing constant surveillance and harassment on their own property, including frequent incursions by low-flying Border Patrol helicopters.

A copy of the ACLU complaint to CBP and DOJ is available here.

A district court case was filed but was dismissed on February 15, 2018.

Contact:  Mitra Ebadolahi| ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties| mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org

American Immigration Council v. United States Department of Homeland Security

American Immigration Council v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 16-cv-01050-RJL (D.C. District Court, Filed June 6, 2016)

The American Immigration Council filed a FOIA request with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in October, 2015 seeking information about complaints filed against the U.S. Border Patrol since January, 2012. This request followed-up on an earlier FOIA request by the Council in response to which CBP produced data concerning 809 complaints of abuse lodged against U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents between January 2009 and January 2012. The Council analyzed this earlier data in a May 2014 report entitled, No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse, revealing that the recorded outcome in 97 percent of the cases CBP claimed to have resolved was “no action.” The data further showed that “physical abuse” by USBP agents was the most prevalent reason given for filing a complaint (cited in 40 percent of the complaints), with “excessive use of force” referenced in 38 percent of the cases. The October 2015 FOIA was filed in order for the Council to determine whether CBP and USBP had made any improvements to the complaint system, and in particular whether the response to complaints filed against agents had changed.

Over 8 months later, CBP had not responded to the October 2015 FOIA. The Council, represented by Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed a lawsuit on June 6, 2016, to compel the release of documents related to the complaints process. CBP subsequently produced a multiple-page spreadsheet listing abbreviated information about thousands of complaints. The case was referred for mediation in May of 2019.

The parties settled and dismissed the case in December 2019. Pursuant to the settlement, CBP produced a second spreadsheet identifying all complaints made against Border Patrol officers by noncitizens or on behalf of noncitizens for the period from the last spreadsheet through August 2019.

Counsel: The American Immigration Council, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Contact: Mary Kenney | American Immigration Council | 202.507.7512 | mkenney@immcouncil.org