Immigrants' Rights Amicus Brief

USCA Case #18-5093 Document #1744243 Filed: 08/06/2018 Page 1 of 55
[SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SEPTEMBER 26, 2018]
No. 18-5093
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of Health

and Human Services; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
v.
ROCHELLE GARZA, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied

minor JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 17-cv-02122-TSC
BRIEF OF IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ADVOCATES AS AMICI CURIAE

SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
JENNIFER K. BROWN ROXANN E. HENRY

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 West 55th Street 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
New York, New York 10019 Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: 202.887.1595
NEIL S. TYLER RHenry@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
Counsel for Amici Curiae
DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS
AND OTHER INTERESTS
Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1, corporate amici curiae make
the following disclosure:
1. No amicus has any parent corporation.
2. No amicus has 10% or more of its stock owned by a publicly held

corporation or other publicly held entity.
3. No other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity has a

direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.
Dated: August 6, 2018 /s/ Roxann E. Henry
i
CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES

Parties and Amici
Except for the following amici, all parties, intervenors, and amici appearing
before the district court and in this Court are listed in the Briefs for Appellants and
Appellees:
Asylum Access
National Immigration Law Center
Public Counsel
The Legal Aid Society
Washington Office on Latin America
ii
RULINGS
This case was previously on appeal in this Court, and references to the
rulings at issue appear in the Briefs for Appellants and Appellees.
RELATED CASES
References to related cases appear in the Brief for Appellants.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER

INTERESTS ................................................................................................... i
CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES .................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... v
GLOSSARY........................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................................1
THE CLASS MEMBERS .........................................................................................3
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................6
I. SPONSORSHIP CANNOT CURE ORR’S DENIAL OF ACCESS

TO ABORTION .............................................................................................7
A. ORR’s Policies, Procedures, and Admissions .....................................8
B. Amici’s Experiences and Knowledge ................................................12
C. Other Federal Court Cases and Recent ORR Policy Changes ........... 14
II. VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE CANNOT CURE ORR’S DENIAL
OF ACCESS TO ABORTION .....................................................................17
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................27
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bassanguen v. Holder,
511 F. App’x 277 (4th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 24
Beltran v. Cardall,
222 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2016) ................................................................. 14
D.B. v. Cardall,
826 F.3d 721 (4th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 14
Hamoudi v. Holder,
377 F. App’x 556 (7th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 24
June Med. Servs. LLC v. Gee,

280 F. Supp. 3d 849 (M.D. La. 2017)................................................................. 17
L. v. United States Immigration & Customs Enf’t (“ICE”),

No. 18cv0428 DMS (MDD), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107365 (S.D.
Cal. June 26, 2018) ............................................................................................. 16
L.V.M. v. Lloyd,
No. 18 CIV. 1453 (PAC), 2018 WL 3133965 (S.D.N.Y. June 27,
2018) .........................................................................................................6, 14, 16
Loho v. Mukasey,
531 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 24
Maldonado v. Lloyd,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75902 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2018) .................................... 14
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds,

2018 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 79 (Iowa Sup. Ct. June 29, 2018)................................. 17
Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Daugaard,

799 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D.S.D. 2011) .................................................................. 17
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) ............................................................................................ 18
* Authorities on which we chiefly rely are marked with asteriks.
v
Santos v. Smith,
260 F. Supp. 3d 598 (W.D. Va. 2017) ................................................................ 14
United States v. Carrasco-Abreu,

No. 07-CR-792, 2008 WL 216923 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2008) ............................ 24
Vasili v. Holder,
442 F. App’x 203 (6th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 24
Yeoboah v. United States Dep’t of Justice,

345 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 24
Statutes and Regulations
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) ........................................................................................ 24
8 U.S.C. § 1229c ...................................................................................................... 25
8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1)................................................................................................. 6
8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3) ............................................................................................. 8, 9
INA § 240B(d) ......................................................................................................... 24
8 C.F.R. § 204.11 ..................................................................................................... 24
8 C.F.R. § 240.25 ..................................................................................................... 25
8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(j) ............................................................................................... 24
Other Authorities
ACLU, Comment to DHS Notice of Modified System of Records, 83
Fed. Reg. 20844 (May 8, 2018) .......................................................................... 16
Adam Isacson, et al., Mexico’s Southern Border: Security, Central

American Migration, and U.S. Policy, Washington Office on Latin
America 13 (June 2017), https://www.wola.org/analysis/wola-
report-mexicos-southern-border-security-central-american-
migration-u-s-policy/ ......................................................................................5, 20
vi
Adriana Beltran, WOLA’s Adriana Beltran Testifies Before Tom

Lantos Human Rights Commission of Congress on Humanitarian
Challenges in Central America, Washington Office on Latin
America(November 1, 2017),
https://www.wola.org/analysis/wolas-adriana-beltran-testifies-tom-
lantos-human-rights-commission-congress/ ....................................................... 19
American Immigration Council, A Guide to Children Arriving at the

Border: Laws, Policies, and Responses, Special Report (June
2015),
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/guide-
children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses ....................................... 18
Andrew Gorman, The 9 countries with the most draconian abortion

laws in the world, http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-
strictest-abortion-laws-2016-12 (Dec. 15, 2016) ................................................ 18
Center for Reproductive Rights, interactive world abortion law map,

http://www.worldabortionlaws.com/map/ (2018 – updated
regularly) ............................................................................................................. 18
Elizabeth Kennedy, No Childhood Here: Why Central American

Children are Fleeing their Homes, American Immigration Council,
Special Report (July 2014),
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/no-
childhood-here-why-central-american-children-are-fleeing-their-
homes ............................................................................................................19, 20
Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Global

Burdens of Armed Violence (2015),
http://www.genevadeclaration. org/nc/en/measurability/global-
burden-of-armed-violence/gbav-2015/ chapter-
3.html?sword_list%5B0%5D=homicide ............................................................ 20
Guttmacher Institute, Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean,

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-latin-america-and-
caribbean (2018) ................................................................................................. 18
Immigrant Legal Resource Center, A Guide for Immigration

Advocates, § 16.42 ........................................................................................24, 25
vii
Jeremy Peters, Under Trump, an Office Meant to Help Refugees

Enters the Abortion Wars, N.Y. Times (Apr. 5, 2018) ........................................ 7
Justice for Immigrants, ORR and DHS Information-Sharing

Agreement: The Unintended Consequences (2018),
https://justiceforimmigrants.org/what-we-are-working-
on/unaccompanied-children/orr-and-dhs-information-sharing-
agreement-the-unintended-consequences/ ....................................................15, 16
Maureen Meyer and Elyssa Pachino, Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration

and Central American Asylum Seekers, Washington Office on
Latin America (February 1, 2018),
https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-
immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/ ................................................. 19
Maureen Meyer, et al., Beyond the Wall: A Human Rights Perspective

on Family and Child Migration from Central America, through
Mexico, and across the U.S. Border, and the U.S. Government
Response, LASAforum, vol. xlviii, issue 2 (Spring 2017),
http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/forum/files/vol48-issue2/Debates-
ImmigrationTrump-1.pdf ...................................................................................... 5
Nick Miroff, Border Arrests Exceed 50,000 for Third Month in a Row,
Wash. Post (June 6, 2018),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-
arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-
row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-
c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.114e73277da1 ........................................ 4
Nick Miroff, et al., ‘Deleted’ Families: What went wrong with

Trump’s family-separation effort, Wash. Post (July 28, 2018),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/deleted-
families-what-went-wrong-with-trumps-family-separation-
effort/2018/07/28/54bcdcc6-90cb-11e8-8322-
b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.2971b97cb0a1 ......................................... 4
*Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR Guide: Children Entering the

United States Unaccompanied, 2.1 Summary of the Safe and
Timely Release Process,
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-
states-unaccompanied ...............................................................................9, 10, 11
viii
Peter J. Meyer, et al., Unaccompanied Children from Central

America: Foreign Policy Considerations, Congressional Research
Service (April 11, 2016),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43702.pdf ...................................................... 22
Peter Meyer, Honduras: Background and U.S. Relations,

Congressional Research Service, Legal Sidebar (July 28, 2017),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34027.pdf ............................................................ 20
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, No. 2017-13,

Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year
2018 (Sept. 29, 2017),
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/23/2017-
23140/presidential-determination-on-refugee-admissions-for-
fiscal-year-2018 .................................................................................................. 18
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Southwest

Border Apprehensions by Sector (2018),
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-border-
apprehensions........................................................................................................ 3
U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Unaccompanied Alien

Children (2018),
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/orr_fact_sheet_on_u
naccompanied_alien_childrens_services_0.pdf ................................................... 4
*U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee

Resettlement (2018), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-
and-data ............................................................................................................. 3, 8
*UN Refugee Agency, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children

Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for
International Protection (2015), http://www.unhcr.org/en-
us/about-us/background/56fc266f4/children-on-the-run-full-
report.html .................................................................................................4, 22, 23
*UN Refugee Agency, Women on the Run: First-Hand Accounts of

Refugees Fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico
(2015) http://www.unhcr.org/en-
us/publications/operations/5630f24c6/women-run.html ................5, 6, 20, 21, 23
ix
Washington Office on Latin America, Children Under Threat:

Fleeing Central America and Seeking Refuge,
https://www.wola.org/migration-patterns-u-s-border/#stories ........................... 20
Washington Office on Latin America, Migrant Children Fleeing

Violence: Karla’s Story, https://www.wola.org/migration-patterns-
u-s-border/#stories .............................................................................................. 20
William A. Klandel, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview,

Congressional Research Service (January 2017),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf ...................................................... 25
William Klandel, et al., Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential

Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration, Congressional
Research Service (July 3, 2014),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf ..................................................5, 19
Ximena Suarez, et al., WOLA Report: Access to Justice for Migrants

in Mexico, Washington Office on Latin America (July 27, 2017),
https://www.wola.org/analysis/access-justice-migrants-mexico-
right-exists-books/ ................................................................................................ 5
x
GLOSSARY
Customs and Border Protection CBP
Department of Homeland Security DHS
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE
Office of Refugee Resettlement ORR
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR
Washington Office on Latin America WOLA
xi
INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici curiae, through their direct work with migrating and immigrant
unaccompanied children and their research and advocacy, offer a unique
perspective on the issues in this case.1 Amici Asylum Access and the Washington
Office on Latin America (“WOLA”), through researching and advocating for
advancing human rights in Latin America, have developed substantial expertise
regarding the conditions unaccompanied girls face in their home countries, on their
journeys to the United States, and at the border. Amicus Asylum Access also
provides legal services to migrant children in or traveling through Mexico,
including intervening to end abuse, unlawful detention, and deportation. Amicus
The Legal Aid Society represents unaccompanied children in New York who have
fled violence and abuse in Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala and are
seeking immigration relief. Amicus Public Counsel has provided domestic legal
services to pregnant unaccompanied girls while in the custody of the federal Office
of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) and after their release. Amicus the National
Immigration Law Center is a leading advocate for low-income immigrants and
their families. These five amici unite here to speak against the government’s
1
All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for a party
authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or counsel for a party made a
monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
No person other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel made a
monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
1
imposition of barriers that effectively ban pregnant unaccompanied teenagers in
ORR custody from obtaining unbiased information regarding their health,
pregnancies, and available medical procedures, and from pursuing abortions if they
so desire. Further descriptions of amici are set forth in Appendix A.
The government does not dispute that class members have fundamental
rights that would allow them to seek and have an abortion. Nor does the
government dispute that its abortion policy imposes an absolute bar for class
members to have an abortion while in ORR custody. Amici address here the
fallacy of the government’s argument that sponsorship placement and voluntary
departure obviate the undue burden imposed by the government on class members.
The government crudely suggests that class members have created their own “self-
imposed obstacle[s]” to obtaining abortions because “the minor creates a difficult
choice for herself by continuing to seek entry to the United States rather than
returning to her country of nationality or helping promptly identify a sponsor.”
(Appellants’ Brief at 2-3.) But neither voluntary departure nor sponsorship is an
“alternative” for class members to obtain timely abortions if they so desire.
Moreover, an undue burden cannot be “cured” by forcing the relinquishment of
fundamental rights.
The sponsor placement process for unaccompanied children is complex,
multi-stepped and protracted—and wholly outside the control of pregnant girls in
2
ORR custody. Voluntary departure typically involves a lengthy process likewise
wholly outside the control of these children. It also would force class members to
abandon fundamental rights to the immigration relief potentially available to them
under international and domestic laws and treaties and require this most vulnerable
population to return to the dangerous and violent countries they fled.
Thus, amici urge the Court to affirm the district court’s order certifying the
class and enjoining ORR from blocking access to abortion for children in its
custody because those practices impose an undue burden on class members’
constitutional rights to an abortion.
THE CLASS MEMBERS

“Unaccompanied minor migrants are among the most vulnerable persons in
the world.” Garza v. Hargan, No. 17-5236, Order at 2 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 20,
2017) (“Millett Dissent”). Between October 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, U.S.
government officials apprehended 37,450 unaccompanied children .2 As of June
2018, approximately 11,800 children were in ORR custody.3 Approximately one-
third are female.4 The government admits that there were at least 420 pregnant
2
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Southwest Border
Apprehensions by Sector (2018), https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-
border-apprehensions.
3
MS. L v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. 18-cv-00428, Declaration of
Jonathan White ¶ 18 (S.D. Cal. filed July 5, 2018) ECF No. 86-1 (“White Decl.”).
4
U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement,
(2018), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data.
3
girls in ORR custody during fiscal year 2017. (ECF No. 53 at 22.) Today there
may be more.5
Approximately 95 percent of all unaccompanied children apprehended at the
border in fiscal year 2017 fled from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador
(collectively, the “Northern Triangle” countries).6 The majority of these children
were “forcibly displaced” from their home countries as a result of conditions that
likely qualify them for international humanitarian protection.7
Central American immigrants typically travel for 21 days or longer through
Mexico to reach the United States border.8 As amicus WOLA has documented,
5
Nick Miroff, et al., ‘Deleted’ Families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-
separation effort, Wash. Post (July 28, 2018),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/deleted-families-what-went-
wrong-with-trumps-family-separation-effort/2018/07/28/54bcdcc6-90cb-11e8-
8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.2971b97cb0a1.
(“If HHS staff wanted to compile specific information such as a roster of all the
pregnant teenagers at shelter, ‘It would be months and months’, said a former HHS
official.”).
6
U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, supra note 4; id. Unaccompanied Alien
Children (2018),
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/orr_fact_sheet_on_unaccompanied_
alien_childrens_services_0.pdf. The majority of the remaining 5% of
unaccompanied minors fled from Mexico.
7
The UN Refugee Agency, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children
Leaving Central America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection, 6
(2015), http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/about-us/background/56fc266f4/children-on-
the-run-full-report.html. (“Children on the Run”)
8
Nick Miroff, Border Arrests Exceed 50,000 for Third Month in a Row, Wash.
Post (June 6, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-
4
along with robbery and extortion, in recent years there has been an alarming
increase in rape and sexual assault along the route.9 Amicus Asylum Access has
found that unaccompanied girls are easy targets for criminal groups, because they
travel alone and thus run the risk of being victims of trafficking, sexual
exploitation (rape, forced prostitution, child pornography), and forced labor. A
Guatemalan woman traveling with her daughter to the United States recounted to
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) how a smuggler
“raped her every day of her 20-day trip.” She “was afraid that he would kill her or
rape her daughter if she protested.”10 And threats of death are real.11
row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-
c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.114e73277da1.
9
Adam Isacson, et al., Mexico’s Southern Border: Security, Central American
Migration, and U.S. Policy, Washington Office on Latin America 13 (June 2017),
https://www.wola.org/analysis/wola-report-mexicos-southern-border-security-
central-american-migration-u-s-policy/. See also Maureen Meyer, et al., Beyond
the Wall: A Human Rights Perspective on Family and Child Migration from
Central America, through Mexico, and across the U.S. Border, and the U.S.
Government Response, LASAforum, volume xlviii, issue 2 at 47 (Spring 2017),
http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/forum/files/vol48-issue2/Debates-
ImmigrationTrump-1.pdf.
10
The UN Refugee Agency, Women on the Run: First-Hand Accounts of Refugees
Fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, 44 (2015)
http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/publications/operations/5630f24c6/women-run.html
(“Women on the Run”).
11
William Klandel, et al., Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential Factors
Contributing to Recent Immigration, Congressional Research Service 10, (July 3,
2014) (mass graves), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf; see also Ximena
Suarez, et al., WOLA Report: Access to Justice for Migrants in Mexico,
Washington Office on Latin America, 32 (July 27, 2017),
5
Many girls successfully escape their home countries’ conditions and survive
the dangerous passage only to discover for the first time while in ORR custody that
they are pregnant. Pregnancy adds to the trauma these girls endure. As some
immigrants who have been raped during the journey north have expressed, they
could cope with “the trauma of the event, but not a baby in the future from the
rape.”12 The girls are at the mercy of ORR because it is the government agency
solely responsible for the “care and custody” of unaccompanied minors once
apprehended in the United States.13
ARGUMENT
Against this background of trauma and coercion, ORR, and specifically
Director Scott Lloyd, has imposed a common set of coercive and restrictive tactics
on the class in an attempt to dissuade, and if necessary block, them from seeking
an abortion. As evidenced by Director Lloyd’s December 2017 memorandum
explaining his decision to deny one of the named plaintiffs an abortion, (ECF No.
92-1), ORR is unlawfully imposing the Director’s own personal views, interests,
and desires on a vulnerable population.14 See L.V.M. v. Lloyd, No. 18 CIV. 1453
https://www.wola.org/analysis/access-justice-migrants-mexico-right-exists-books/
(hundreds of migrants found dead in Mexico).
12
Women on the Run 44, supra note 10.
13
8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1).
14
Scott Lloyd is not a social worker, doctor, or psychologist; rather, prior to his
political appointment he was an attorney with a history in the anti-abortion
movement, including as a policy coordinator for the Knights of Columbus Catholic
6
(PAC), 2018 WL 3133965, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2018) (“the APA
[Administrative Procedure Act] guards against agency actions instituted based on
personal preference of decision-makers”). The district court’s order properly
enjoins ORR from engaging in any further coercive and unduly burdensome tactics
in an effort to dissuade unaccompanied children from obtaining abortions.15
I. SPONSORSHIP CANNOT CURE ORR’S DENIAL OF ACCESS

TO ABORTION
As the district court recognized, “the right of every pregnant minor in ORR
custody to seek an abortion is necessarily time limited, and with the passage of
time, the risk that she will no longer be afforded a choice—along with the
associated health risks—increase.” (ECF No. 126 at 19.) Sponsorship “does not
cure the constitutional infirmity inherent in the ORR policy” because (1) “locating
a sponsor is typically a lengthy, complex process involving multiple stages, over
which the [unaccompanied minor] has no control” and (2) “ORR makes the final
decision of whether to approve a particular sponsor.” (ECF No. 126 at 27.) This
fraternal order. Jeremy Peters, Under Trump, an Office Meant to Help Refugees
Enters the Abortion Wars, N.Y. Times (Apr. 5, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/refugee-office-abortion-
trump.html .
15
The government claims that the class should not have been certified because
“only 18 [girls] requested abortion services.” (Appellants’ Brief at 9). ORR,
however, has recognized that fears of retaliation affect what children tell the
government. White Decl. at ¶ 25. ORR, which has tried to exert complete power
and influence over every aspect of a class member’s care, has amply demonstrated
its anti-abortion stance, and many class members may not even be made aware of
their rights.
7
conclusion is evident from ORR’s own policies and procedures, other federal court
cases documenting the sponsorship process, and the personal experiences and
knowledge of amici.
As of June 15, 2018, the average length of custody for an unaccompanied
minor in ORR care was approximately 57 days.16 The average length of care has
steadily increased from an average of 37 days in just three years.17 The
government’s disingenuous contention that class members can “end th[eir] custody
at any time . . . by working with the government to identify, vet, and approve a
sponsor” (Appellate Brief at 40) ignores ORR’s policies on what it considers
necessary before it can release a child to a sponsor and also ignores the practical
reality that unaccompanied children exercise little to no ability to influence the
approval of a sponsor, cannot alter the timing of the vetting and approval process,
and suffer from an overall lack of information because ORR does not even
consider these children key participants in the process.
A. ORR’s Policies, Procedures, and Admissions

8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3)(A) mandates:
“an unaccompanied alien child may not be placed with a person or

entity unless [ORR] makes a determination that the proposed
custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental
16
U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, supra note 4; Flores v. Sessions, Case
No. 85-4544-DMG, Declaration of Jallyn N. Sualog, Acting Deputy Director for
Children’s Programs, ORR, ECF No. 425-1 ¶ 30 (S.D. Cal. filed May 5, 2018).
17
Id.
8
well-being. Such determination shall, at a minimum, include

verification of the custodian’s identity and relationship to the child, if
any, as well as an independent finding that the individual has not
engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the
child.”
Per ORR, “[t]he process for the safe and timely release of an unaccompanied alien
child from ORR custody involves many steps, including: the identification of
sponsors; the submission by a sponsor of the application for release and supporting
documentation; the evaluation of the suitability of the sponsor, including
verification of the sponsor’s identity and relationship to the child, background
checks, and in some cases home studies; and planning for post-release.”18 In the
case of “a child who has been a victim of physical or sexual abuse under
circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare has been significantly
harmed or threatened,” “[a] home study shall be conducted.”19
In the government’s words, the Flores settlement agreement that set forth
many of the standards governing ORR’s care and custody of unaccompanied
minors provides “broad and permissive authority for ORR to conduct suitability
determinations.”20 And over the last few years ORR has put in place “more robust
18
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR Guide: Children Entering the United
States Unaccompanied, 2.1 Summary of the Safe and Timely Release Process,
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-
unaccompanied .
19
8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3)(B).
20
Flores, supra note 16, ECF No. 425 at 19.
9
suitability provisions.”21 In recent Flores litigation the government objected to
those plaintiffs “asking th[e] Court to eliminate processes that are, in fact,
necessary for the protection of UAC in ORR custody, the elimination of which
would create a risk that UAC would be released from ORR custody to sponsors
that are not suitable to care for them.”22 The government asserted that its recent
“enhancements” are “necessary, even where they may result in some delay in
release. ORR must fully assess a sponsor (even a parent) before making a release
determination.”23
Contrary to ORR’s insinuation that pregnant girls in its care may simply find
themselves a sponsor, unaccompanied minors are not even listed in ORR’s policies
as a participant in the release decision: “ORR’s sponsor assessment and release
decision process requires coordination among care provider staff, nongovernmental
third-party reviewers (Case Coordinators), ORR staff, other Federal agencies,
stakeholders, and Child Advocates, where applicable.”24 Each step under ORR’s
policies that it considers “necessary” to release class members to a sponsor—
identifying qualified sponsors; contacting potential sponsors; interviewing,
verifying, and screening potential sponsors; coordinating with foreign consulates in
21
Id. at 21.
22
Id. at 24.
23
Id. at 21.
24
Office of Refugee Resettlement, supra note 18, 2.3 Key Participants in the
Release Process.
10
certain circumstances; completing applications for release; submitting identity
verification and potentially additional information; attending the highly-
recommended legal orientation program presentation for potential sponsors;
conducting background checks, fingerprinting, and home studies; preparing
reports; providing recommendations on release; making final decisions on release;
coordinating after care planning; arranging transportation; and physically
transferring custody to the sponsor—takes considerable time and are entirely
outside the control of pregnant girls.25 These children are confined to ORR’s care,
provided with limited information about their sponsorship process, and are not
afforded the opportunity to influence ORR’s decisions or timing, even if they had
the knowledge and tools, such as English fluency, that would be necessary to
navigate the complex process.
The Acting Deputy Director and Director of Children’s Services for ORR
recently confirmed that under ORR’s view each of the above steps “apply to all
sponsors prior to release, including parents.”26 These purportedly “necessary”
steps have led to unpredictable delays and increased the average length of ORR
care for unaccompanied children.27
25
See id., 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8; see also generally Flores, ECF No. 425-1.
26
Sualog Decl., ECF No. 425-1 ¶ 19 (emphasis in the original).
27
Id. ¶¶ 37-40. The unaccompanied minor who had been in care the longest as of
February 1, 2018, had been in care for 1,373 days. Id. ¶ 47.
11
B. Amici’s Experiences and Knowledge

Amici working with unaccompanied children have seen long delays in their
releases to sponsors and witnessed how pregnant girls often have no one to turn to
for help in identifying a sponsor. For example, a staff member at amicus Public
Counsel previously represented a 17-year-old Guatemalan girl who escaped to the
United States after being kidnapped and held hostage in her home country for over
two months. She was held in a remote location, tied up, and repeatedly raped by
multiple armed men. After crossing the border and being apprehended by the
government, it took ORR four months to release her to a sponsor.
Amici have found that ORR faces greater challenges finding suitable
sponsors for pregnant girls. Amici Public Counsel has seen how these girls who
have been raped (and even gang raped) in their home countries suffer further
psychological trauma during pregnancy, and especially when pressured to continue
their pregnancies and give birth. The vast majority of pregnant children Public
Counsel has encountered became pregnant due to rape, some at ages as young as
14. A Legal Aid staff member encountered pregnant girls as young as 11 or 12
during her former employment with an agency that served children in ORR
custody. And ORR subjects pregnant girls to stricter screening for suitable
sponsors capable of caring for them during their pregnancies and afterwards.
12
In her former job, this same Legal Aid staff member saw first-hand how,
even before ORR’s current policy took effect, it could be difficult or impossible for
pregnant girls in ORR custody to obtain an abortion. In one case, she was an
advocate for a girl who had been raped during her journey. After discovering her
pregnancy while in ORR custody, the girl expressed her desire to have an
abortion. The case manager at the shelter, however, opposed abortion and forced
her religious views on the girl. The case manager also provided inconsistent
information on how far the girl’s pregnancy had advanced and whether abortion
was still available. In the end, despite the girl’s continued requests for an abortion
and the advocate’s efforts, the time when an abortion could be obtained passed and
this young trauma survivor was forced against her will to bear a child.
In another case, this same advocate learned from a girl who was early in her
pregnancy that she wanted an abortion. This girl had been raped in her home
country. The girl had no viable sponsor—the only potential sponsor was a relative
whose reaction to the rape and the ensuing pregnancy could not be
predicted. Despite fears that the advocate’s agency might suffer negative
consequences for pressing the girl’s right to abortion, the advocate continued her
efforts. Under the previous administration, the girl was transferred to a facility
near an abortion provider and she ended the pregnancy. That outcome would have
13
been impossible if she had been required to wait for a sponsor to exercise her right
to choose abortion.
C. Other Federal Court Cases and Recent ORR Policy Changes

Federal court dockets throughout the country are replete with other examples
of unaccompanied children experiencing significant delays in the sponsorship
process for varying reasons. See, e.g., Flores v. Sessions, Case No. 85-4544-DMG,
Mem. in Support of Mot. to Enforce Class Action Settlement (C.D. Cal. filed Apr.
16, 2018) ECF No. 409-1 (citing declarations detailing detentions of Camila G. for
one year and three months; Gabriela N. for six months; Carlos A. for four months;
Miguel B for five months; Roberto F for ten months; Isabella M. for 10 months);
Santos v. Smith, 260 F. Supp. 3d 598, 602-603 (W.D. Va. 2017) (despite mother
filing a reunification application within two days of her child’s apprehension, the
unaccompanied minor was in ORR custody for 29 months); D.B. v. Cardall, 826
F.3d 721 (4th Cir. 2016) and Beltran v. Cardall, 222 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va.
2016) (mother did not receive ORR decision for more than two months after her
sponsorship application and child remained in custody for nearly three years);
L.V.M. v. Lloyd, No. 18 CIV. 1453 (PAC), 2018 WL 3133965, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
June 27, 2018) (17-year-old held in ORR custody for more than seven months );
Maldonado v. Lloyd, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75902 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2018) (child
in ORR custody for nearly a year despite mother’s reunification efforts ); see also
14
Lucas R., et al. v. Azar, et al., Case No. 18-cv-05741 (C.D. Cal.) ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 10-
69 (complaint filed June 29, 2018, alleging minors remain in ORR custody from 3
to 18 months); J.E.C.M. et al. v. Lloyd et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00903-LMB-MSN
(E.D. Va.) (complaint filed July 21, 2018 alleging minor in ORR custody for 5
months and delays in sponsor placement).28
Recent policy changes are expected to further slow the sponsorship process.
In May 2018, ORR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and Customs
and Border Protection (“CBP”) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
“mandating continuous information-sharing on unaccompanied immigrant children
beginning when CBP or ICE takes them into custody through their release from
ORR custody. This includes information on the children’s potential ‘sponsors’
(usually family members), as well as anyone else living with the sponsor.”29 ORR
now provides ICE “with the name, date of birth, address, fingerprints, and any
available documents or biographic information about not only the sponsor but also
all adult members of the potential sponsor’s household.”30 Amici Public Counsel
28
It should be noted that the district court order does not interfere with the
government’s sponsorship process in any way.
29
Justice for Immigrants, ORR and DHS Information-Sharing Agreement: The
Unintended Consequences, (2018), https://justiceforimmigrants.org/what-we-are-
working-on/unaccompanied-children/orr-and-dhs-information-sharing-agreement-
the-unintended-consequences/.
30
Id.
15
and Legal Aid have already seen that this policy has prevented some sponsors from
coming forward:
 Public Counsel – “With the Trump Administration’s recent public

statements and policies on immigration, sponsors (even parents) are
hesitant to come forward out of fear of deportation. Potential sponsors
are being told that being a sponsor or even having any contact with
unaccompanied children can result in deportation.”
 Legal Aid – “Formerly, ORR’s policy was not to share information with
ICE, but now it is sharing information both prior to and after release.
This is leading to a longer sponsorship process because it is now harder
to find potential sponsors due to the fear of deportation.”31
The ACLU similarly has commented on how this new policy “will lead to
increased numbers of children in ORR custody for longer periods of time.”32
As another court recently found in a separate class action, “since Lloyd took
office at ORR, there has been a substantial increase in the detention period.”
L.V.M. v. Lloyd, No. 18 CIV. 1453 (PAC), 2018 WL 3133965 at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
June 27, 2018).33
* * *
31
See also id. (“It is anticipated that the MOA, as written, will accelerate not only
the decline in releases to parents, but also releases overall, leading to longer stays
in ORR custody.”).
32
ACLU, Comment to DHS Notice of Modified System of Records, 83 Fed. Reg.
20844 (May 8, 2018).
33
C.f. L. v. United States Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. 18cv0428 DMS
(MDD), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107365, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018)
(unpredictable process delays with reunification).
16
In sum, the practical realities and timing of sponsorship destroy any notion
that sponsorship could “cure” the deprivation of a class member’s right to an
abortion while in ORR custody. While abortion remains safer than childbirth
throughout pregnancy, later abortions carry greater health risks. See, e.g., Garza v.
Hargan, No. 17-5236, Order at 10-11, note 6 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 24, 2017)
(Millett Concurrence) (citing sources). Thus, courts have held that legislatively
imposed delays of much briefer duration than the average wait time for an ORR-
approved sponsor create an unconstitutional undue burden on the right to obtain an
abortion. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Daugaard, 799 F. Supp. 2d
1048, 1066 (D.S.D. 2011) (holding unconstitutional a 72-hour delay that in
practice would last 7 to 30 days); see also June Med. Servs. LLC v. Gee, 280 F.
Supp. 3d 849, 869 (M.D. La. 2017) (declining to dismiss claim that enforced delay
of 72 hours may constitute undue burden); Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v.
Reynolds, 2018 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 79 at *88 (Iowa Sup. Ct. June 29, 2018) (holding
enforced delay of 72 hours violated state constitution). Delays in access to
abortion occasioned by a sponsorship process that takes on average 57 days and
often longer are clearly an unconstitutional burden on class members’ rights.
II. VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE CANNOT CURE ORR’S DENIAL

OF ACCESS TO ABORTION
Voluntary departure likewise is not an option for class members to obtain
abortions:
17
First, abortion is almost entirely illegal in each of the three Northern
Triangle countries.34 In Guatemala, abortion is only available to save a woman’s
life. In Honduras, the law makes no explicit exceptions to the country’s ban on
abortion. In El Salvador, not only has legislation eliminated all exceptions to the
country’s prohibition on abortion, but women have been prosecuted and
imprisoned for having abortions (and even miscarriages).35
Second, the government’s voluntary departure proposal would penalize a
minor for seeking an abortion by forcing her to return to the dangerous conditions
from which she fled, even when that puts her life in jeopardy.36
President Trump late last year declared that persons from all three Northern
Triangle countries should be considered refugees.37 Surveys reveal that almost half
34
See Center for Reproductive Rights, interactive world abortion law map:
http://www.worldabortionlaws.com/map/ (2018 – updated regularly); Guttmacher
Institute, Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean,
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-latin-america-and-caribbean
(2018)
35
See also Andrew Gorman, The 9 countries with the most draconian abortion
laws in the world, http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-strictest-abortion-
laws-2016-12 (Dec. 15, 2016).
36
It is undisputed that the pregnant woman’s welfare takes precedence over the
state’s interest in potential life. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
37
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, No. 2017-13, Presidential
Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2018 (Sept. 29, 2017),
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/23/2017-23140/presidential-
determination-on-refugee-admissions-for-fiscal-year-2018; see also Saravia v.
Sessions, No. 17-cv-03615, August 16, 2017 ORR Information Memo, ECF No.
112-1 at 3 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2017); American Immigration Council, A Guide
to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies, and Responses, Special Report
18
of all unaccompanied children experienced serious harm or threats by organized
criminal groups or state actors, and one-fifth experienced domestic abuse.38
“Female minors most fear rape or disappearance at the hands of drug cartels,
gangs, or state actors.”39
Asylum Access has seen that girls face serious risks because their gender
and age make them vulnerable, and because their home governments,
communities, and even families fail to protect them. Indeed, gangs perceive these
girls as easy targets for being young, naïve, and unprotected, and turn them into
partners of their gang leaders, sexual stimulators for the whole gang, or drug
dealers. The girls then suffer extreme violations of their human rights and physical
and emotional abuse, causing them to escape. Amicus WOLA has documented the
conditions women and children face in their home countries,40 and recently
(June 2015), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/guide-

children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses (children citing gang and
cartel violence as reasons for fleeing).
38
Klandel, et al., supra note 11.
39
Elizabeth Kennedy, No Childhood Here: Why Central American Children are
Fleeing their Homes, American Immigration Council, Special Report (July 2014),
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/no-childhood-here-why-
central-american-children-are-fleeing-their-homes.
40
See, e.g., Maureen Meyer and Elyssa Pachino, Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration and
Central American Asylum Seekers, Washington Office on Latin America,
(February 1, 2018), https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-
immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/ (in recent years, there are multiple,
documented cases of Central Americans deported from the United States who have
been killed as a result of gang violence); Adriana Beltrán, WOLA’s Adriana
Beltrán Testifies Before Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of Congress on
19
recognized that “Central America has the highest homicide rate for women in the
world.”41
The UNHCR reported first-hand accounts of women, including minors, who
have fled the Northern Triangle and immigrated to the United States.42 Because of
their gender, these women were both targets of violence and unable to find
protection from state authorities, facing extreme levels of violence on an almost
daily basis. The women provided appalling accounts of the conditions they faced
in their home countries before embarking on the dangerous journey to the United
States, including rape, sexual assault, violent physical abuse even in public,
Humanitarian Challenges in Central America, Washington Office on Latin

America(November 1, 2017), https://www.wola.org/analysis/wolas-adriana-
beltran-testifies-tom-lantos-human-rights-commission-congress/ (“it is not realistic
to imagine that large numbers of those who have fled the region can be safely
returned and reintegrated”); see also Central American Minors Videos:
Testimonies collected by WOLA, Children Under Threat: Fleeing Central
America and Seeking Refuge and Migrant Children Fleeing Violence: Karla’s
Story, Washington Office on Latin America, https://www.wola.org/migration-
patterns-u-s-border/#stories.
41
Adam Isacson, et al., supra note 9.; Women on the Run, supra note 10 (citing
The Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Global Burdens of
Armed Violence (2015), http://www.genevadeclaration.
org/nc/en/measurability/global-burden-of-armed-violence/gbav-2015/ chapter-
3.html?sword_list%5B0%5D=homicide); see also Peter Meyer, Honduras:
Background and U.S. Relations, Congressional Research Service, Legal Sidebar
(July 28, 2017), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34027.pdf (“Honduras remains one
of the most violent countries in the world and continues to suffer from persistent
human rights abuses and widespread impunity,” which has led to U.S. authorities
encountering nearly 41,000 unaccompanied Honduran children between 2013 and
2017, many of whom requested humanitarian protection); Kennedy, supra note 40.
42
Women on the Run, supra note 10.
20
extortion, threats by criminal armed groups and state authorities, murders, forced
disappearances of loved ones, contact with dead bodies, corruption, forced hiding,
and much more.
For example, a young Honduran woman recounted: “The gangs treat
women much worse than men. They want us to join as members, but then women
are also threatened to be gang members’ ‘girlfriends,’ and it’s never just sex with
the one; it’s forced sex with all of them. Women are raped by them, tortured by
them, abused by them.”43 A young Guatemalan woman recalled: “In the local
market, the people from the cartel put the dead body of a woman on public display
to strike fear into everyone.”44 The UNHCR concluded that, “[g]iven the
demonstrated fear of persecution, and in the absence of effective State protection,
many of the claims for international protection of women interviewed for this
report are likely, upon individual determination, to fall within the scope of the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, its 1967 Protocol, and related
jurisprudence.”45
43
Id. at 16.
44
Id.
45
Id. at 6.
21
A similar report focused specifically on female children who had fled
Central America and Mexico.46 The accounts of violence, rape, and sexual assault
directed towards girls are chilling:
 48% of the children interviewed were “affected by the augmented

violence in the region by organized armed criminal actors, including drug
cartels and gangs or by State actors.”
 21%, primarily girls, reported surviving “abuse and violence in their
homes by their caretakers.”
 A 17-year-old Guatemalan girl reported that her stepfather had tried to
rape her several times, and that when she told her mother, her mother did
not believe her and beat her.
 A 12-year-old girl who fled Honduras described fear of being raped by
gang members as her reason for fleeing. That gang had raped and
impregnated five girls in her village, and then those girls disappeared.
 A 16-year-old Honduran girl was constantly abused and threatened by
her stepfather.
 A 17-year-old Honduran girl fled from her abusive father—who had
raped and impregnated her sister—after he was released from prison.47
Amici believe that conditions are unlikely to improve in the near term.
Northern Triangle “governments lack the institutions, resources, and political will”
to protect these children.48 For many unaccompanied children, immigrating to the
46
Children on the Run, supra note 7.
47
Id. at 6, 33-37.
48
Peter J. Meyer, et al., Unaccompanied Children from Central America: Foreign
Policy Considerations, Congressional Research Service (April 11, 2016),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43702.pdf.
22
United States is a matter of life and death.49 And pregnant girls often face even
crueler conditions than they experienced prior to their pregnancies.50
It therefore is no surprise that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) recently found that a large percentage of the thousands of women and
girls fleeing the Northern Triangle in fiscal year 2015 had “a significant possibility
of establishing eligibility for asylum or protection under the Convention against
Torture.”51 Nonetheless, the government in this case seeks to force pregnant girls
seeking abortions to return to places of persecution through the “voluntary”
departure process. The government’s claim that pregnant unaccompanied
teenagers are coming to the United States for the purpose of “abortion tourism” is
belied by the well-documented persecution and dangers from which they fled and
is therefore particularly insulting.
Third, voluntary departure would require class members to abandon their
fundamental rights to potential immigration relief in the United States, such as
asylum and other humanitarian protections available under domestic and
49
Women on the Run 41, supra note 10 (“More than three-quarters of the women
stated they knew the path to safety would be difficult, yet they decided to flee
anyway. When asked why, they responded that staying in their home countries
meant certain death or continued suffering.”).
50
Children on the Run, 69-70, supra note 7 (noting, among other forms of
persecution faced in their home countries, that “pregnant girls may be rejected by
their families and subject to harassment, violence, forced prostitution, or other
demeaning work”) (citations omitted).
51
Women on the Run 50 supra note 10.
23
international laws, treaties, and conventions. Voluntary departure would require
these pregnant girls to waive their rights to a removal hearing, the point at which
they present their requests for relief from removal, such as asylum.52 “Such a
proposal renders the exercise of constitutional rights a Hobson’s choice, wherein
one set of rights must be waived in order to effectuate another. That proposal in
and of itself likely constitutes a substantial obstacle to a UC’s exercise of her
rights—especially when voluntary departure could mean exposing herself to the
risk of further abuse.” (ECF No. 126 at 26.)53 The government cannot “condition
the exercise of a constitutional right by women and girls on their surrender of other
legal rights.” (Millett Dissent at 5, relying on Yeoboah v. United States Dep’t of
Justice, 345 F.3d 216, 221-222 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.11.)
52
Also, “an alien’s history of willingly returning to his or her home country
militates against a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution.” Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008);
Bassanguen v. Holder, 511 F. App’x 277, 282-83 (4th Cir. 2013) (same); Vasili v.
Holder, 442 F. App’x 203, 207 (6th Cir. 2011) (same); Hamoudi v. Holder, 377 F.
App’x 556, 558-59 (7th Cir. 2010) (same). Further, if a pregnant girl was willing
and able to risk a return, the circumstances of voluntary departure can subject her
to lengthy ineligibility and fines. See Immigrant Legal Resource Center, A Guide
for Immigration Advocates, § 16.42. Overview of Types of Voluntary Departure
(March 2016) (citing United States v. Carrasco-Abreu, No. 07-CR-792, 2008 WL
216923 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2008), INA § 240B(d), and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(j).
53
See also Millett Dissent at 6 (“Needless to say, conditioning a woman’s exercise
of her fundamental right to reproductive choice, see Casey, supra, on the surrender
of other legal rights is at the least a substantial obstacle to the exercise of her
constitutional right. And by the way, this is a Hobson’s Choice that the federal
government demands only of female immigrants.”).
24
Fourth, voluntary departure for a pregnant girl is an unpredictable process
that cannot be effectuated instantly as the government suggests. Even if a child
were to request voluntary departure immediately upon discovering her pregnancy
and before immigration proceedings have commenced, returning her to her home
country could take months, with each step and the timing outside her control.
Prior to the initiation of removal proceedings, only DHS officials are
authorized to grant voluntary departure. There is no timetable within which DHS
must respond to a request, and it can revoke a previously approved voluntary
departure “without advance notice.”54 If a voluntary departure request is approved
by DHS, ICE is then responsible for arranging children’s departures.55 In practice,
however, amici have heard that when a child requests voluntary departure, DHS
and ICE usually take the position that they will not discuss voluntary departure
until removal proceedings have begun, which then requires approval by an
immigration judge. And as amicus Legal Aid has found, usually the government
does not file the Notice to Appear, which commences removal proceedings, until
an unaccompanied child has been in ORR custody for at least 60 days. Due to
significant backlogs in the courts, amici familiar with removal proceedings find
54
8 U.S.C. § 1229c; 8 C.F.R. § 240.25; Immigrant Legal Resource Center, supra,
note 52.
55
William A. Klandel, Congressional Research Service: Unaccompanied Alien
Children: An Overview, 4, 7 (January 2017),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf (hereinafter, “Overview”).
25
that initial hearings before immigration judges do not occur for another several
months.
Even if DHS or ICE did try to prioritize pregnant girls’ requests for
voluntary departure, the government must make all the necessary arrangements,
including coordinating with the foreign country’s consulate regarding the child’s
return.56 Amicus Legal Aid estimates that it can often take one to two months to
arrange for a child’s travel back to her home country even after voluntary departure
is approved. Arranging for voluntary departure requires, at a minimum, a valid
passport, which these children often do not have. The issuance of travel
documents specific for repatriation is often required also.57 “Obtaining such
documentation is often problematic and time-consuming because countries
frequently ‘raise objections to a juvenile’s return.’”58
* * *
The reality is that forcing “voluntary” departure upon class members would
simply place an additional undue burden on their right to choose an abortion; it is
not a “viable alternative” to the district court’s injunction.
56
Overview at 4, 7
57
Id.
58
Id. Also, because the government must fund unaccompanied minors’ voluntary
departures (id. at 7), even if it were a means to abortion access, the cost and effort
for the government to effectuate a voluntary departure would be far more than the
government’s purported “burden” to “facilitate” the district court’s injunction,
which is the government’s central reason for claiming the injunction was wrongly
issued. (See generally Appellants’ Brief).
26
CONCLUSION
Amici urge the Court to affirm the ruling below and hold that the ORR’s
coercive and unconstitutional policy that interferes with class members’
constitutional rights to abortion must be enjoined.
Dated: August 6, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Roxann E. Henry
ROXANN E. HENRY
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: 202.887.1500
RHenry@mofo.com
JENNIFER K. BROWN
250 West 55th Street
New York, New York 10019
NEIL S. TYLER
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
Counsel for Amici Curiae
27
APPENDIX A
NAMES AND INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS OF INTEREST
OF AMICI CURIAE
Names of the Amici Curiae
Asylum Access
National Immigration Law Center
Public Counsel
The Legal Aid Society (NY)
Washington Office on Latin America
Individual Statements of Interest of the Amici Curiae
Asylum Access, one of the leading global refugee human rights organizations, has
deep experience across a range of contexts in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Globally, the Asylum Access family of organizations provides legal empowerment
services to nearly 30,000 refugees annually, helping them access legal status, free
movement, lawful employment, education, health care, and effective legal
protections. Asylum Access also advocates locally, nationally and globally for
policies and practices that improve refugees’ access to rights and opportunity.
Over the past decade, Asylum Access’s work has resulted in concrete changes that
affect an estimated 2 million refugees. Asylum Access operates five different
locations in Mexico, where it regularly engages with unaccompanied minors in or
traveling through the country. Frequently the work includes intervening to end
abuse, unlawful detention, or deportation of unaccompanied minors back to
dangerous situations in Central and South America, some of whom may
subsequently seek safety in the United States. Near the southern border of Mexico,
Asylum Access offers free legal services and frequently represents clients who
have fled from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala – just like the vast majority
of unaccompanied girls at issue in this litigation have. This work, and related
research and advocacy, equip Asylum Access with a deep understanding of the
conditions and challenges faced by unaccompanied minors who make the
dangerous journey through Mexico in search of asylum and safety. This direct
experience with the issues, concerns, and problems raised by the litigation makes
Asylum Access uniquely qualified to provide the Court with a wider view of how
its decision will impact the class of detained girls at issue.
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is the primary advocacy

organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing
the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their families. NILC
envisions a U.S. society in which all people—regardless of their race, gender, or
immigration or economic status—are treated fairly and humanely, and have equal
access to the education, health care (including reproductive health care),
government resources, and economic opportunities they need to achieve their full
human potential.
Public Counsel, based in Los Angeles, California, is the nation’s largest not-for-
profit law firm specializing in delivering pro bono legal services. Through a pro
bono model that leverages the talents of thousands of attorney and law student
volunteers, Public Counsel annually assists more than 30,000 families, children,
and nonprofit organizations, and addresses systemic poverty and civil rights issues
through impact litigation and policy advocacy. Public Counsel’s Immigrants’
Rights Project provides pro bono placement and direct representation to
individuals and families—including unaccompanied children and asylum
seekers—in the Los Angeles Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration
Appeals, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Public
Counsel’s commitment to the reproductive rights of pregnant teens in ORR
custody arises from its representation of these young women as they seek safety
and a future in the United States.
The Legal Aid Society is the oldest and largest program in the nation providing
direct legal services to low-income families and individuals. Founded in 1876,
The Legal Aid Society has a long-standing proven track record of providing
targeted services to meet the essential legal needs for the most vulnerable New
Yorkers in all five boroughs of the City. The Society’s legal program operates
three major practices — Civil, Criminal and Juvenile Rights — and receives
volunteer help from law firms, corporate law departments and expert consultants
that is coordinated by the Society’s Pro Bono program. With its annual caseload of
more than 300,000 legal matters, the Legal Aid Society takes on more cases for
more clients than any other legal services organization in the United States, and it
brings a depth and breadth of perspective that is unmatched in the legal profession.
Beyond individual representation, the Legal Aid Society's law reform unit has
achieved landmark rulings with statewide and national impact. The Society’s Civil
Practice maintains an Immigration Law Unit (ILU) whose Youth Project’s work
includes expert representation in seeking asylum and Special Immigrant Juvenile
Status, among other forms of immigration relief, for Unaccompanied Children
(UACs) and Adults with Children (AWCs) fleeing endemic gang violence and
domestic abuse in Mexico and Central American countries, in particular El
Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala (the Northern Triangle).
The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is a research and advocacy

organization advancing human rights in the Americas. Founded in 1974, WOLA
works in collaboration with partners in the region to impact policies—U.S.
policies, Latin American government policies, and multilateral institutions'
policies—to defend and advance human rights and social justice. WOLA and its
partners gather information, conduct research, and present reports, testimony, and
informational materials to governments, civil society, and international bodies in
the U.S. and Latin America. WOLA’s programs in Central America and Mexico
have examined the disparate impacts of violence and insecurity on women and
girls. Since 2011, WOLA has been researching and reporting on human rights
issues along the U.S.-Mexican border, culminating in its “Beyond the Wall”
campaign. Beyond the Wall, launched in early 2017, is a research and advocacy
campaign to examine a constellation of related policy issues: the drivers of
migration in Central America, the difficulties migrants experience en route, the
treatment of migrants at the U.S. border, and access to asylum in the U.S. Over a
third of WOLA's staff, across multiple programs, are involved in this
effort. WOLA is deeply concerned with the treatment of girls and young women
who cross the border and their access to services, including reproductive health
services. We are also deeply knowledgeable about the issues young women face in
Central America and in transit.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 29(A)(5)

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule 29(a)(5) of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because, excluding the parts of the document
exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(f), it contains 6,323 words,
which is below the limit of 6,500 words.
This brief complies with the typeface and type style requirements of the
Federal Rules of Appellate procedure because this brief has been prepared in a
proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft® Office Word 2010 in 14-point
Times New Roman font.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by using the appellate CM/ECF system on August 6, 2018.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

STATUTORY
ADDENDUM
Table of Contents
Statute Page
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) A1
8 U.S.C. § 1229c A1
8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1); (c)(3)(B) A4
8 C.F.R. § 204.11 A5
8 C.F.R. § 240.25 A7
8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(j) A8
INA § 240B(d) A8
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)
(a) As used in this chapter—
(27) The term “special immigrant” means—
(J) an immigrant who is present in the United States—
(i) who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the
United States or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed
under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or
entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States, and
whose reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents is not viable
due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State
law;
(ii) for whom it has been determined in administrative or judicial
proceedings that it would not be in the alien’s best interest to be returned to
the alien’s or parent’s previous country of nationality or country of last
habitual residence; and
(iii) in whose case the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the grant
of special immigrant juvenile status, except that—
(I) no juvenile court has jurisdiction to determine the custody status
or placement of an alien in the custody of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services
specifically consents to such jurisdiction; and
(II) no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided
special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by
virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status
under this chapter;
8 U.S.C. § 1229c
(a) Certain conditions
(1) In general
The Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to depart the United States
at the alien's own expense under this subsection, in lieu of being subject to
proceedings under section 1229a of this title or prior to the completion of such
proceedings, if the alien is not deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) or
section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title.
(2) Period
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraph (B), permission to depart voluntarily under this subsection
shall not be valid for a period exceeding 120 days.
(B) Three-year pilot program waiver
A1
During the period October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2003, and subject to
subparagraphs (C) and (D)(ii), the Attorney General may, in the discretion of the
Attorney General for humanitarian purposes, waive application of subparagraph
(A) in the case of an alien—
(i) who was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor
(described in section 1101(a)(15)(B) of this title) under the provisions of the
visa waiver pilot program established pursuant to section 1187 of this title,
seeks the waiver for the purpose of continuing to receive medical treatment
in the United States from a physician associated with a health care facility,
and submits to the Attorney General—
(I) a detailed diagnosis statement from the physician, which includes
the treatment being sought and the expected time period the alien will
be required to remain in the United States;
(II) a statement from the health care facility containing an assurance
that the alien's treatment is not being paid through any Federal or State
public health assistance, that the alien's account has no outstanding
balance, and that such facility will notify the Service when the alien is
released or treatment is terminated; and
(III) evidence of financial ability to support the alien's day-to-day
expenses while in the United States (including the expenses of any
family member described in clause (ii)) and evidence that any such
alien or family member is not receiving any form of public assistance;
or
(ii) who--
(I) is a spouse, parent, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other family
member of a principal alien described in clause (i); and
(II) entered the United States accompanying, and with the same
status as, such principal alien.
(C) Waiver limitations
(i) Waivers under subparagraph (B) may be granted only upon a request
submitted by a Service district office to Service headquarters.
(ii) Not more than 300 waivers may be granted for any fiscal year for a
principal alien under subparagraph (B)(i).
(iii)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), in the case of each principal
alien described in subparagraph (B)(i) not more than one adult may be
granted a waiver under subparagraph (B)(ii).
(II) Not more than two adults may be granted a waiver under subparagraph
(B)(ii) in a case in which—
(aa) the principal alien described in subparagraph (B)(i) is a
dependent under the age of 18; or
A2
(bb) one such adult is age 55 or older or is physically handicapped.

(D) Report to Congress; suspension of waiver authority
(i) Not later than March 30 of each year, the Commissioner shall submit to
the Congress an annual report regarding all waivers granted under
subparagraph (B) during the preceding fiscal year.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authority of the
Attorney General under subparagraph (B) shall be suspended during any
period in which an annual report under clause (i) is past due and has not
been submitted.
(3) Bond
The Attorney General may require an alien permitted to depart voluntarily under
this subsection to post a voluntary departure bond, to be surrendered upon proof
that the alien has departed the United States within the time specified.
(4) Treatment of aliens arriving in the United States
In the case of an alien who is arriving in the United States and with respect to
whom proceedings under section 1229a of this title are (or would otherwise be)
initiated at the time of such alien's arrival, paragraph (1) shall not apply. Nothing in
this paragraph shall be construed as preventing such an alien from withdrawing the
application for admission in accordance with section 1225(a)(4) of this title.
(b) At conclusion of proceedings
(1) In general
The Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to depart the United States
at the alien's own expense if, at the conclusion of a proceeding under section 1229a
of this title, the immigration judge enters an order granting voluntary departure in
lieu of removal and finds that—
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a period of at
least one year immediately preceding the date the notice to appear was served
under section 1229(a) of this title;
(B) the alien is, and has been, a person of good moral character for at least 5 years
immediately preceding the alien's application for voluntary departure;
(C) the alien is not deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) or section
1227(a)(4) of this title; and
(D) the alien has established by clear and convincing evidence that the alien has
the means to depart the United
States and intends to do so.
(2) Period
Permission to depart voluntarily under this subsection shall not be valid for a
period exceeding 60 days.
(3) Bond
A3
An alien permitted to depart voluntarily under this subsection shall be required to

post a voluntary departure bond, in an amount necessary to ensure that the alien
will depart, to be surrendered upon proof that the alien has departed the United
States within the time specified.
(c) Aliens not eligible
The Attorney General shall not permit an alien to depart voluntarily under this
section if the alien was previously permitted to so depart after having been found
inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(A) of this title.
(d) Civil penalty for failure to depart
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (2), if an alien is permitted to depart voluntarily under this
section and voluntarily fails to depart the United States within the time period
specified, the alien—
(A) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more
than $5,000; and
(B) shall be ineligible, for a period of 10 years, to receive any further relief
under this section and sections 1229b, 1255, 1258, and 1259 of this title.
(2) Application of VAWA protections
The restrictions on relief under paragraph (1) shall not apply to relief under section
1229b or 1255 of this title on the basis of a petition filed by a VAWA self-
petitioner, or a petition filed under section 1229b(b)(2) of this title, or under
section 1254(a)(3) of this title (as in effect prior to March 31, 1997), if the extreme
cruelty or battery was at least one central reason for the alien's overstaying the
grant of voluntary departure.
(3) Notice of penalties
The order permitting an alien to depart voluntarily shall inform the alien of the
penalties under this subsection.
(e) Additional conditions
The Attorney General may by regulation limit eligibility for voluntary departure
under this section for any class or classes of aliens. No court may review any
regulation issued under this subsection.
(f) Judicial review
No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an
order of voluntary departure under subsection (b), nor shall any court order a stay
of an alien's removal pending consideration of any claim with respect to voluntary
departure.
8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1); (c)(3)(A); (c)(3)(B)

(b) Combatting child trafficking and exploitation in the United States
(1) Care and custody of unaccompanied alien children.
A4
Consistent with section 279 of Title 6, and except as otherwise provided under
subsection (a), the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien children, including
responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the responsibility of
the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(c) Providing safe and secure placements for children
(3) Safety and suitability assessments
(A) In general
Subject to the requirements of subparagraph (B), an unaccompanied alien
child may not be placed with a person or entity unless the Secretary of
Health and Human Services makes a determination that the proposed
custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-
being. Such determination shall, at a minimum, include verification of the
custodian’s identity and relationship to the child, if any, as well as an
independent finding that the individual has not engaged in any activity that
would indicate a potential risk to the child.
(B) Home studies
Before placing the child with an individual, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall determine whether a home study is first necessary. A
home study shall be conducted for a child who is a victim of a severe form
of trafficking in persons, a special needs child with a disability (as defined in
section 12102 of Title 42), a child who has been a victim of physical or
sexual abuse under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or
welfare has been significantly harmed or threatened, or a child whose
proposed sponsor clearly presents a risk of abuse, maltreatment,
exploitation, or trafficking to the child based on all available objective
evidence. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct
follow-up services, during the pendency of removal proceedings, on children
for whom a home study was conducted and is authorized to conduct follow-
up services in cases involving children with mental health or other needs
who could benefit from ongoing assistance from a social welfare agency.
8 C.F.R. § 204.11
(a) Definitions.
Eligible for long-term foster care means that a determination has been made by the
juvenile court that family reunification is no longer a viable option. A child who is
eligible for long-term foster care will normally be expected to remain in foster care
until reaching the age of majority, unless the child is adopted or placed in a
guardianship situation. For the purposes of establishing and maintaining eligibility
for classification as a special immigrant juvenile, a child who has been adopted or
placed in guardianship situation after having been found dependent upon a juvenile
A5
court in the United States will continue to be considered to be eligible for long-
term foster care. Juvenile court means a court located in the United States having
jurisdiction under State law to make judicial determinations about the custody and
care of juveniles.
(b) Petition for special immigrant juvenile. An alien may not be classified as a
special immigrant juvenile unless the alien is the beneficiary of an approved
petition to classify an alien as a special immigrant under section 101(a)(27) of the
Act. The petition must be filed on Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er)
or Special Immigrant. The alien, or any person acting on the alien's behalf, may file
the petition for special immigrant juvenile status. The person filing the petition is
not required to be a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.
(c) Eligibility. An alien is eligible for classification as a special immigrant under
section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act if the alien:
(1) Is under twenty-one years of age;
(2) Is unmarried;
(3) Has been declared dependent upon a juvenile court located in the United
States in accordance with state law governing such declarations of
dependency, while the alien was in the United States and under the
jurisdiction of the court;
(4) Has been deemed eligible by the juvenile court for long-term foster care;
(5) Continues to be dependent upon the juvenile court and eligible for long-
term foster care, such declaration, dependency or eligibility not having been
vacated, terminated, or otherwise ended; and
(6) Has been the subject of judicial proceedings or administrative
proceedings authorized or recognized by the juvenile court in which it has
been determined that it would not be in the alien's best interest to be returned
to the
country of nationality or last habitual residence of the beneficiary or his or
her parent or parents; or
(7) On November 29, 1990, met all the eligibility requirements for special
immigrant juvenile status in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section,
and for whom a petition for classification as a special immigrant juvenile is
filed on Form I–360 before June 1, 1994.
(d) Initial documents which must be submitted in support of the petition.
(1) Documentary evidence of the alien's age, in the form of a birth
certificate, passport, official foreign identity document issued by a foreign
government, such as a Cartilla or a Cedula, or other document which in the
discretion of the director establishes the beneficiary's age; and
(2) One or more documents which include:
A6
(i) A juvenile court order, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction

located in the United States, showing that the court has found the beneficiary
to be dependent upon that court;
(ii) A juvenile court order, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction
located in the United States, showing that the court has found the beneficiary
eligible for long-term foster casre; and
(iii) Evidence of a determination made in judicial or administrative
proceedings by a court or agency recognized by the juvenile court and
authorized by law to make such decisions, that it would not be in the
beneficiary's best interest to be returned to the country of nationality or last
habitual residence of the beneficiary or of his or her parent or parents.
(e) Decision. The petitioner will be notified of the director's decision, and, if the
petition is denied, of the reasons for the denial. If the petition is denied, the
petitioner will also be notified of the petitioner's right to appeal the decision to the
Associate Commissioner, Examinations, in accordance with part 103 of this
chapter.
8 C.F.R. § 240.25
(a) Authorized officers. The authority contained in section 240B(a) of the Act to
permit aliens to depart voluntarily from the United States may be exercised in lieu
of being subject to proceedings under section 240 of the Act by district directors,
assistant district directors for investigations, assistant district directors for
examinations, officers in charge, chief patrol agents, the Deputy Executive
Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Director of the
Office of Juvenile Affairs, service center directors, and assistant service center
directors for examinations.
(b) Conditions. The Service may attach to the granting of voluntary departure any
conditions it deems necessary to ensure the alien's timely departure from the
United States, including the posting of a bond, continued detention pending
departure, and removal under safeguards. The alien shall be required to present to
the Service, for inspection and photocopying, his or her passport or other travel
documentation sufficient to assure lawful entry into the country to which the alien
is departing. The Service may hold the passport or documentation for sufficient
time to investigate its authenticity. A voluntary departure order permitting an alien
to depart voluntarily shall inform the alien of the penalties under section 240B(d)
of the Act.
(c) Decision. The authorized officer, in his or her discretion, shall specify the
period of time permitted for voluntary departure, and may grant extensions thereof,
except that the total period allowed, including any extensions, shall not exceed 120
days. Every decision regarding voluntary departure shall be communicated in
A7
writing on Form I–210, Notice of Action—Voluntary Departure. Voluntary

departure may not be granted unless the alien requests such voluntary departure
and agrees to its terms and conditions.
(d) Application. Any alien who believes himself or herself to be eligible for
voluntary departure under this section may apply therefor at any office of the
Service. After the commencement of removal proceedings, the application may be
communicated through the Service counsel. If the Service agrees to voluntary
departure after proceedings have commenced, it may either:
(1) Join in a motion to terminate the proceedings, and if the proceedings are
terminated, grant voluntary departure or
(2) Join in a motion asking the immigration judge to permit voluntary
departure in accordance with § 240.26.
(e) Appeals. An appeal shall not lie from a denial of an application for voluntary
departure under this section, but the denial shall be without prejudice to the alien's
right to apply to the immigration judge for voluntary departure in accordance with
§ 240.26 or for relief from removal under any provision of law.
(f) Revocation. If, subsequent to the granting of an application for voluntary
departure under this section, it is ascertained that the application should not have
been granted, that grant may be revoked without advance notice by any officer
authorized to grant voluntary departure under § 240.25(a). Such revocation shall be
communicated in writing, citing the statutory basis for revocation. No appeal shall
lie from revocation.
8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(j)
(j) Penalty for failure to depart. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
civil penalty for failure to depart, pursuant to section 240B(d)(1)(A) of the Act,
shall be set at $3,000 unless the immigration judge specifically orders a higher or
lower amount at the time of granting voluntary departure within the permissible
range allowed by law. The immigration judge shall advise the alien of the amount
of this civil penalty at the time of granting voluntary departure.
INA § 240B(d)
(d) Civil Penalty for Failure to Depart
(1) In general—Subject to paragraph (2), if an alien is permitted to depart
voluntarily under this section and voluntarily fails to depart the United States
within the time period specified, the alien—
(A) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more
than $5,000; and
(B) shall be ineligible, for a period of 10 years, to receive any further relief
under this section and sections 240A, 245, 248, and 249.
A8

Immigrants&#39; Rights Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Immigrants&#39; Rights Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA Case #18-5093 Document #1744243 Filed: 08/06/2018 Page 1 of 55

[SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SEPTEMBER 26, 2018]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of Health

ROCHELLE GARZA, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied

BRIEF OF IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ADVOCATES AS AMICI CURIAE

JENNIFER K. BROWN ROXANN E. HENRY

DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS

AND OTHER INTERESTS

the following disclosure:

1. No amicus has any parent corporation.

2. No amicus has 10% or more of its stock owned by a publicly held

3. No other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity has a

Dated: August 6, 2018 /s/ Roxann E. Henry

CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES

National Immigration Law Center

The Legal Aid Society

Washington Office on Latin America

Dated: August 6, 2018 /s/ Roxann E. Henry

rulings at issue appear in the Briefs for Appellants and Appellees.

References to related cases appear in the Brief for Appellants.

Dated: August 6, 2018 /s/ Roxann E. Henry

DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER

CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES .................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................................1

THE CLASS MEMBERS .........................................................................................3

I. SPONSORSHIP CANNOT CURE ORR’S DENIAL OF ACCESS

B. Amici’s Experiences and Knowledge ................................................12

June Med. Servs. LLC v. Gee,

L. v. United States Immigration & Customs Enf’t (“ICE”),

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds,

Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Daugaard,

* Authorities on which we chiefly rely are marked with asteriks.

United States v. Carrasco-Abreu,

Yeoboah v. United States Dep’t of Justice,

Statutes and Regulations

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) ........................................................................................ 24

8 U.S.C. § 1229c ...................................................................................................... 25

8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3) ............................................................................................. 8, 9

INA § 240B(d) ......................................................................................................... 24

8 C.F.R. § 204.11 ..................................................................................................... 24

8 C.F.R. § 240.25 ..................................................................................................... 25

8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(j) ............................................................................................... 24

Adam Isacson, et al., Mexico’s Southern Border: Security, Central

Adriana Beltran, WOLA’s Adriana Beltran Testifies Before Tom

American Immigration Council, A Guide to Children Arriving at the

Andrew Gorman, The 9 countries with the most draconian abortion

Center for Reproductive Rights, interactive world abortion law map,

Elizabeth Kennedy, No Childhood Here: Why Central American

Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Global

Guttmacher Institute, Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean,

Immigrant Legal Resource Center, A Guide for Immigration

Jeremy Peters, Under Trump, an Office Meant to Help Refugees

Justice for Immigrants, ORR and DHS Information-Sharing

Maureen Meyer and Elyssa Pachino, Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration

Maureen Meyer, et al., Beyond the Wall: A Human Rights Perspective

Nick Miroff, et al., ‘Deleted’ Families: What went wrong with

*Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR Guide: Children Entering the

Peter J. Meyer, et al., Unaccompanied Children from Central

Peter Meyer, Honduras: Background and U.S. Relations,

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, No. 2017-13,

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol Southwest

Immigrants' Rights Amicus Brief

Immigrants' Rights Amicus Brief